God is Impossible

[swivel]

... they say that the universe is boundless and bounded, all at the same time, like swivel disingenuously asserts.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure I have twice stated that my cosmological ideas are pure conjecture, used to show that a god model is not completely necessary. I'm not in this thread to push my models on people, I'm trying to do as the thread-creator asked... show why god is not logically possible.

I personally feel that I have succeeded, and One Raven has helped me extrapolate on some of the more difficult points.

And calling me disingenuous is simply rude. It asserts that you think that I am lying, when I have never even forcefully made the case that you suggest. Shame on you.

 

[Sarkus]

Here is a re-stating of the gist of my proof using your infinite string. Imagine your hand somewhere on the body of this string. Now, I want to tell you that there is a piece of string that I painted red, off to your left. I want you to go and find it. The problem is, you can't ever find it. I painted it so far to the left, that you would have to go an infinite length to get to it. No matter how far you go, the part I painted is just a little further to the left. You could travel an infinite distance, and still not approach it.

Apologies for the double post - as I have already posted what follows to when you raised this earlier....

I think this is what is causing me the issue...

If you label the discrete states from -inf all the way to +inf, with NOW being point 0, why is it impossible to reach any other of the discrete states from -1 through to -inf?

Why could you not start at "hypothetical state" -100 and count forwards to state 0 - or from 0 down to -100?

If the states are discrete - then there are not an infinite number of different states between consecutive ones. There is just point -100, then point -99.
It matters not that there are an infinite number of points past the -100, and the same number past -200, -300, -40,000,000 etc.

Infinity also does not mean that there are infinite points between two other points - unless one point is randomly generated - where the chance of it not being at an infinite distance away is mathematically ZERO.
i.e. a truly randomly generated positive real number (between 1 and infinity) will be infinitely far from 0.
However, 1 is still only 1 away from 0.
-1 is still only 1 away from 0.

So why could this God not create at point -100? Why does it have to be at -Inf?

Or am I missing something here?

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Raith, you said that the second law of thermodyamics does not require that the universe have a beginning point, because, as you say, energy can comes from outside the system to maintain it, kinda' like the imaginary Oort cloud which supposedly supplies our solar system with new comets (can't run out of those, otherwise, the solar system is very young), I was just stating why your assertion is bogus, you should be ashamed of yourself, and with "our" Big Bang, with the necessitated closed system, we had gravitational time dilation during the expansion of matter, so the stars need be only thousands of years old, how do you like them apples?

 

[Sarkus]

... and with "our" Big Bang, with the necessitated closed system, we had gravitational time dilation during the expansion of matter, so the stars need be only thousands of years old, how do you like them apples?

Please feel free to provide the maths to support this.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

See Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphreys, a Sandia Labs man.

 

[one_raven]

swivel,

As Sarkus is attempting to explain...
If, as you said, time is made up of an infinite number of discrete points, that doesn't mean that there is an infinite number of discrete points between arbitrary point A and arbitrary point B.
It means the exact opposite, in fact.

Just like your infinitely long string made up of an infinte number of discrete bits...
You paint a red band on it, some distance from me.
I am the starting point.
The red band is a finite number of bits on the string from my starting point.
Numbers can go into the negative infinitely and into the positive infinitely.
Still, are there not a limited amount of whole numbers between -1,000,234 and +3,452?

OK...
Time goes back infinitely, and God has a cup of coffee every morning - we have established that much.
One arbitrary morning he decides that he's tired of drinking his coffee in the dark, and gets an idea.
"Let there be light."
The moment he spake light into existence was his little red band on the string.
From the until now it has been X amount of time (let's just say 15 Billion years).
Between now and when God could finally see the coffee in his cup is 15 Billion years.
Going back from now, time is infinite.
Going back from the moment of light, time is infinite.
Between now and the moment of ligt time is not infinite because we have defined an arbitrary start and end point on that infinite line.

 

[one_raven]

It is not so much a question of bestowing, more a question of recognition.

So, if God is eternal and no one was there to see it, he is not really eternal?
Is that your position?

 

[Sauna]

So, if God is eternal and no one was there to see it, he is not really eternal?
Is that your position?

If I were God it might be, but I am not yet so sure of that, or the subsidiary authority to say so.

In the mean time is it not illogical to propose that anything at all exists except with something else to perceive so, to validate the existence?

Illogical or not, to judge from comments to forum topics it is not thought to be scientific.

Ergo my logical conclusion had always tended to be that God created Adam and the spare rib in the image of God in order to exist in Heaven, or whatever the correct address may be (on the forum we are not allowed to reveal the locations of contributors, let alone their Gods) the corollary being that prior to the infamous event she was obviously not so bothered as to wish to exist, more of a non entity one may say, were that allowed.

Does that make sense?

 

[Sauna]

So, if God is eternal and no one was there to see it, he is not really eternal?
Is that your position?

If I were God it might be, but I am not yet so sure of that, or the subsidiary authority to say so.

In the mean time is it not illogical to propose that anything at all exists except with something else to perceive so, to validate the existence?

Illogical or not, to judge from comments to forum topics it is not thought to be scientific.

Ergo my logical conclusion had always tended to be that God created Adam and the spare rib in the image of God in order to exist in Heaven, or whatever the correct address may be (on the forum we are not allowed to reveal the exact locations of contributors, let alone their Gods) the corollary being that prior to the infamous event she was obviously not so bothered as to wish to exist, more of a non entity one may rather say, were that allowed.

Does that make sense?

 

[(Q)]

See Starlight and Time, by Russell Humphreys, a Sandia Labs man.

Complete nonsense. Humphreys invokes divine intervention into a seriously erred version of General Relativity, for which he does not provide the math.

However, here is a couple of evangelical Christians who have refuted Humphreys with the math.

Enjoy.

http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf

 

[Sauna]

So, if God is eternal and no one was there to see it, he is not really eternal?
Is that your position?

If I were God it might be, but I am not yet so sure of that, or the subsidiary authority to say so.

In the mean time is it not illogical to propose that anything at all exists except with something else to perceive so, to validate the existence?

Illogical or not, to judge from comments to forum topics it is not thought to be scientific.

Ergo my logical conclusion had always tended to be that God created Adam and the spare rib in the image of God in order to exist in Heaven, or whatever the correct address may be (on the forum we are not allowed to reveal the exact locations of contributors, let alone their Gods) the corollary being that prior to the infamous event she was obviously not so bothered as to wish to exist, more of a non entity one may rather say, were that allowed.

Does that make sense?

 

[one_raven]

Does that make sense?

It does.

It is, however, an awfully self-centric view that God only exists for the purpose of creating man.
Then again, I suppose that the standard Christian God is a very self-centric creation.

I haven't been, and likely wouldn't, argue in favor of the possibility of the Christian view of God (unless to play Devil's Advocate, or attempting to see from a different point of view than my own), as I have not a shred of faith that he would exist.

If we are talking about a God in general - take swivel's premises as an example: 1. God is a conscious, thinking being. 2. God is eternal. 3. God created the universe.

I don't know what would compel God to create the universe in the first place, but to assume it is solely for a home for man, is fairly absurd, in my opinion - given the vastness of the universe just as one of the many reasons.

Also, I'm not so sure why we must assume that God(s) would not care to exist - had nothing better to do or think about - before creating the universe.

 

[Sarkus]

It is, however, an awfully self-centric view that God only exists for the purpose of creating man.

Isn't more a view that Man was only created to enable God to exist?

The tree that creates an observer so that it can fall to the ground and make a noise.

 

[one_raven]

Isn't more a view that Man was only created to enable God to exist?

The tree that creates an observer so that it can fall to the ground and make a noise.

I suppose it is.
Good point.

Does that makes it any less self-centric of man, however?
I think it makes it even more arrogant, in that we are the Gods of God.

 

[Sauna]

It does.
It is, however, an awfully self-centric view that God only exists for the purpose of creating man.

Ah ha, now we have fun.

Is God the chicken and we the egg, or are we the chicken and God the egg?

Do you dare to call God a chicken?

If so, why did she cross the road?

... as I have not a shred of faith that he would exist.

Such a terrible plight. Is it something we have to work at or more of a gift? Be it that faith is required it seems mean to fail so miserably to adequately instruct us with regard to the appropriate technique.

If we are talking about a God in general - take swivel's premises as an example: 1. God is a conscious, thinking being. 2. God is eternal. 3. God created the universe.

I don't know what would compel God to create the universe in the first place, but to assume it is solely for a home for man, is fairly absurd, in my opinion - given the vastness of the universe just as one of the many reasons.

I suppose that God's desire to exist was so insufferably irresistable that she just had to succumb to the temptation. Perhaps it was the Devil's doing. We would all then have that in common, in the image of God.

Also, I'm not so sure why we must assume that God(s) would not care to exist - had nothing better to do or think about - before creating the universe.

I think it more polite to mind my own business. When she is good and ready to reveal herself she knows where to find me.

In the mean time I feel for the plight.

Must be terrible to be so alone up there.

 

[one_raven]

Is God the chicken and we the egg, or are we the chicken and God the egg?

Or perhaps neither.
If a God does exist, why does that necessarily have anything to do with man?
Man could very well simply be a by-product of God creating the universe.
I did say that your reasoning made sense regarding God needing something to witness it's existence in order to exist - in that I understood what you were trying to say - however, I don't necessarily agree with your point of view.

Such a terrible plight. Is it something we have to work at or more of a gift? Be it that faith is required it seems mean to fail so miserably to adequately instruct us with regard to the appropriate technique.

Exactly.
Blind faith is nothing more than a warm blanket of denial and self-delusion.

I suppose that God's desire to exist was so insufferably irresistable that she just had to succumb to the temptation.

This goes back to the first comment above.

I think it more polite to mind my own business. When she is good and ready to reveal herself she knows where to find me.

In the mean time I feel for the plight.

Must be terrible to be so alone up there.

Perhaps God, being so terribly lonely, created the universe because you would be the eventual by-product.

 

[Sarkus]

Be it that faith is required it seems mean to fail so miserably to adequately instruct us with regard to the appropriate technique.

Ah - you need to talk with Lightgigantic - all about what is the correct epistemology for perceiving God.

I suppose that God's desire to exist was so insufferably irresistable that she just had to succumb to the temptation.

So much for the Omniscient, omnipotent etc - succumbing to the merest temptation of wanting to be noticed.
The brat in the eternally closed mall with noone to see its tantrums.

Must be terrible to be so alone up there.

She can always get cable!

 

[Sauna]

Perhaps God, being so terribly lonely, created the universe because you would be the eventual by-product.

Who is to say?

What do I know?

Genesis Chapter One appears to infer deliberation, Adam as an after thought perhaps, but not so much of a by product, c.f. "in the image of", ergo the vanity of God the narcissist who takes a whole week just to put on her make up!

Were Adam to be blessed with the choice I wonder if he'd rather have kept his extra rib to himself and done better without the snake, the apple and all that.

 

[Sauna]

So much for the Omniscient, omnipotent etc - succumbing to the merest temptation of wanting to be noticed.
The brat in the eternally closed mall with noone to see its tantrums.

I laugh out loud.

Now you got it.

 

[one_raven]

Genesis Chapter One appears to infer deliberation, Adam as an after thought perhaps, but not so much of a by product, c.f. "in the image of", ergo the vanity of God the narcissist who takes a whole week just to put on her make up!

Again, you are talking specifically about Abraham's God.
I am not limiting my discussion to such a being.