God is Impossible

[Sauna]

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

I see, so much the better with the beauty contest.

Which then of the flock is possible and which not?

Obviously, I was intextricably conditioned by the Abraham version, "thou shall put no other god before me", so it would help if somebody more intelligently objective and sufficiently brave would be kind enough to explain the differences.

 

[one_raven]

As I said earlier...

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.

Is that not reasonable?

 

[Sauna]

As I said earlier...
Is that not reasonable?

Sure enough, but not so interesting.

 

[one_raven]

There is already a million threads here about the impossibility of Abraham's God.

 

[Sauna]

There is already a million threads here about the impossibility of Abraham's God.

If another is somehow more possible, please tell.

 

[one_raven]

But, see, the point of this thread is for atheists to offer a sound, solid, reasonable argument for the impossibility of God existing.

 

[swivel]

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.

Sarkus, this is for you as well, I just quoted one of you for simplicity.

First off, I have labored to prove that there is never an infinite number of states between two points. I guess we all agree on this now. Most mathematicians would disagree with me, but as I have shown, they are falling into the trap of zero dimensions.

It seems that both of you complain that an infinite number of states in both directions can be reached from any arbitrary point. I say not, and here is why, and also where I think your confusion comes from:


The reason that you can never get from NOW to some point at negative infinity is because there are an infinite number of points for me to choose from. You guys are both pointing out (correctly) that you can always travel between any two DEFINED points on an infinite continuum. That is a given, since all you have done, when you define two points, is create a separate entity WITHIN the infinite span. This would be a line SEGMENT, which will always be of finite length. No problem. That is why One Raven can speak of god going from some defined cup of coffee to the one where he created the universe. Finite discrete points were traversed.

Mentioned briefly in my proof is this precise mistake. I think of it as a "directional counting" mistake. Here's how it works....


1 --------------------- X ----------------------- 9

We like to think of ourselves at "X", with a negative infinity at "1" and a positive infinity at "9". Nothing wrong with this view, at all. The problem is, when we imagine being able to travel through an infinite portion of the continuum, we always count FROM "X". This is why the paradox remains hidden.

As we count backwards through time, towards "1", we know that we left from "X", so it exists, and we know that we are traveling towards "1", with the hope of eventually getting there. But that is not how time works, nor how infinities work. And we can demonstrate this by counting in the other direction.

Let us say that god is eventually going to have to pee. Even his great powers are not immune to the effects of coffee. When will god have to pee? After an infinite number of cups. He will pee right around the "9". So god keeps on brewing and drinking cups of coffee. Will he ever pee? Never. He will never drink an infinite number of cups of coffee. However many he has already had, he needs AT LEAST one more. (at most, an infinite number more). There is no way for him to get from any cup of coffee to the point that he will need to pee, because we have said that he will drink an infinite cups of coffee before he needs to do so.

Ridiculous? I agree, and that is the crux of the proof. Christians tell me that god is infinite. Which means that he has assumed an infinite number of discrete states before the creation of the universe. We have just seen that you can't do an infinite number of things BEFORE you do something else. Impossible. The disproof of the Abrahamic god actually lies right in the nonsensical axioms given by adherents.

And yes, making coffee is a perfect representation of god's infinite states. What he does is arbitrary. And no, you can't say that god is both infinite, but only went through a countable number of states prior to creating the universe, it is a paradox. If god was ever in complete stasis BEFORE he began drinking cups of coffee, then there was no time, and he is not eternal. It means that he had a FIRST SOMETHING that he performed. He had a beginning. And this is more nonsensical than the universe having a non-caused beginning of its own. This is one place where Occam's razor cuts deep.

Please post more objections if you have them. I am honestly stunned that these concepts don't just describe themselves, but am quite willing to keep discussing these ideas until they do.

 

[one_raven]

Occam's razor is not a determination of reality, or even probability. It is nothing more than a method to increase practicality and decrease complexity.
Occam's Razor simply implies "Keep it simple", nothing more.

Please post more objections if you have them. I am honestly stunned that these concepts don't just describe themselves, but am quite willing to keep discussing these ideas until they do.

I understand what you are trying to say, I am just not sold on it at all.

Since there would be an infinite amount of time before God wanted to have his coffee in the light, he never would have made it to the point at which he would have said, "Let there be light", because regardless when it happened, it is impossible to reach the "end" of infinity. Right?

I don't buy it.

Regardless of if time ever had a beginning, it would still progress.
Such is the nature of time.

 

[swivel]

Occam's razor is not a determination of reality, or even probability. It is nothing more than a method to increase practicality and decrease complexity.
Occam's Razor simply implies "Keep it simple", nothing more.


I understand what you are trying to say, I am just not sold on it at all.

Since there would be an infinite amount of time before God wanted to have his coffee in the light, he never would have made it to the point at which he would have said, "Let there be light", because regardless when it happened, it is impossible to reach the "end" of infinity. Right?

I don't buy it.

Regardless of if time ever had a beginning, it would still progress.
Such is the nature of time.

I understand Occam's razor. My point is that god must have had a First State, before which he was in stasis. Creating him, just to create the universe is an unneeded complexity.


So... you are telling me that god drank an infinite number of cups of coffee, AND THEN he created the universe. Please explain to me how this is remotely possible. I have gone through my posts several times now and do not see how a rational human being can keep insisting that you can do an infinite number of things. Ever. (I'm not saying that you are irrational, I'm just missing something about your thought process, and Sarkus', to think that god would ever need to urinate if it takes an infinite number of cups of coffee to fill him up).

I guess I have helped you to figure out what my stance is, I would now like to reverse roles and spend a few days trying to figure out how god is ever going to need to urinate. But first I will need to know a few things:

1. Do you agree that god urinating, and god creating the universe, are similar feats? That is, god had to brew an infinite number of cups of coffee before both events.

2. If so, please explain to me how god can logically accomplish the task of existing in an infinite number of states, prior to completing a task, whether it be urinating or creating the cosmos.

And I urge you to be patient with me because I am going to have a very difficult time accepting how an eternity has elapsed leading up to the NOW that we exist in. If, in traveling backwards we can never reach a some of the "early" states, how, traveling forwards from them, would we reach the NOW? And by "early" states, I do not mean a defined state that is of finite distance from the NOW, I mean one of the states, which must exist in an infinite system, which will never be reached no matter how far and long you travel.

-Cheers.

 

[one_raven]

swivel,
I am frankly as struck as you are that something which seems almost intuitive to me would be something you think is impossible.
Give me some time to mull this over and see if I can come up with a way to clearly show how it is possible.
In the meantime, you try and think of a way to clearly show how it is impossible and we'll see who comes up with something first.
(because what you did, as I said, doesn't convince me at all that it is imposssible)

 

[Athelwulf]

For those of us who are Atheists here, I thought to ask whether any of you can provide a philosophical argument that demonstrates the impossibility of God. That is to say, not simply "the lack of evidence for God", but the logical impossibility.

Come, we must have some strong atheists and non-agnostics here, so I expect you to come out of the woodwork and show us where the Theists are wrong.

This ought to be interesting.

Well, if you want a philosophical argument, I got one:

The existence of a god, or at least an omnipotent one, demeans the beauty and awe of the universe's complexity.

People look at the universe and say, "Wow, it's so beautiful, and amazingly complex." And they wonder why it's like this. Someone might conclude that an equally amazing entity made the universe. Some all-powerful being made all that you see and made it beautiful and complex.

Oh... Well gee, that's not so amazing, really.

Think about it: Explaining that an all-powerful being made the universe like it is turns it into something that is to be expected, and therefore not quite as amazing. If the being that made the universe is all-powerful, you expect it to have made the universe exceedingly complex and beautiful. It's like when you have a professional watchmaker before you — you expect the professional watchmaker to make a very nice watch.

I guess when it comes down to it, this argument only works for the Judeo-Christian god and other gods who are supposedly omnipotent. It would be so much more amazing if a being with limited power made the universe as beautiful and complex as it is. It's like when you have a child who wants to make a watch for you — you would be absolutely shocked and amazed if he made a watch just as nice as the professional watchmaker did. The watch would be even more amazing if a child had made it than if the professional watchmaker had.

Or, it could be even more amazing if the universe came about like this by itself. You would positively swell with awe. Whereas if you knew an omnipotent being did it, you wouldn't be nearly as awestruck.

 

[Sauna]

Please post more objections if you have them. I am honestly stunned that these concepts don't just describe themselves, but am quite willing to keep discussing these ideas until they do.

It makes perfect sense to me, if that helps to alleviate the stun.

The curiosity is in what God was up to before she got around to creating the Universe.

The mathematical difficulty is in the divison of infinity, and the impossibility of proving that a divided infinity is actually divided.

If the period before the creation was infinite, then it was never complete, for infinity is by definition incomplete, so she'd never actually have got around to the job, there would always have been an infinite number of previous jobs to complete.

One is neverthelss reluctant to comprehend this because of the dread to think of the sheer busyness of it all, not to mention the egocentricity of our expectation.

God forbid that there was already an infinite number of creations patiently waiting to be created.

 

[Sauna]

Please post more objections if you have them. I am honestly stunned that these concepts don't just describe themselves, but am quite willing to keep discussing these ideas until they do.

It makes perfect sense to me, if that helps to alleviate the stun.

The curiosity is in what God was up to before she got around to creating the Universe.

The mathematical difficulty is in the divison of infinity, and the impossibility of proving that a divided infinity is actually divided.

If the period before the creation was infinite, then it was never complete, for infinity is by definition incomplete, so she'd never actually have got around to the job, there would always have been an infinite number of previous jobs to complete.

One is nevertheless reluctant to comprehend this because of the dread to think of the sheer busyness of it all, not to mention the egocentricity of our expectation.

God forbid that there was already an infinite number of creations patiently waiting to be created.

 

[Sauna]

It's like when you have a child who wants to make a watch for you — you would be absolutely shocked and amazed if he made a watch just as nice as the professional watchmaker did.

Curiously that appears to presuppose an insight into the nature of God, as if she intended it all to be so beautiful and amazing, instead of enlarging our mind enough to cope with it all as the mundane event that it might have been to a God with a long list of creations to catch up with, whatever the pressure of that would be with infinite time allowed.

Alternatively, she did really know what she was doing. Some of the most amazingly beautiful people that I have known were insane and incompetent in ordinary terms, and with no particular intention to be so.

 

[swivel]

Well, if you want a philosophical argument, I got one:

The existence of a god, or at least an omnipotent one, demeans the beauty and awe of the universe's complexity.

People look at the universe and say, "Wow, it's so beautiful, and amazingly complex." And they wonder why it's like this. Someone might conclude that an equally amazing entity made the universe. Some all-powerful being made all that you see and made it beautiful and complex.

Oh... Well gee, that's not so amazing, really.

Think about it: Explaining that an all-powerful being made the universe like it is turns it into something that is to be expected, and therefore not quite as amazing. If the being that made the universe is all-powerful, you expect it to have made the universe exceedingly complex and beautiful. It's like when you have a professional watchmaker before you — you expect the professional watchmaker to make a very nice watch.

I guess when it comes down to it, this argument only works for the Judeo-Christian god and other gods who are supposedly omnipotent. It would be so much more amazing if a being with limited power made the universe as beautiful and complex as it is. It's like when you have a child who wants to make a watch for you — you would be absolutely shocked and amazed if he made a watch just as nice as the professional watchmaker did. The watch would be even more amazing if a child had made it than if the professional watchmaker had.

Or, it could be even more amazing if the universe came about like this by itself. You would positively swell with awe. Whereas if you knew an omnipotent being did it, you wouldn't be nearly as awestruck.

That's a brilliant post. And just the sort of appeal to mysticism-cum-proof that theistic philosophers love and adore. If it wasn't counter to their ideals, I'm sure they would embrace it themselves.

I, for one, applaud you. This is a well-worded sentiment that I have always felt myself. It is what moved Sagan and Feynman. I've heard it as a railing against the false mysticism of the faithful, but never before as an appeal to the disproof of god.


And Sauna, thank you for chiming in. I would love to say that it makes me feel more sane, but honestly, I'm one of those iconoclasts that truly believes that everyone else is crazy...

 

[Sauna]

but honestly, I'm one of those iconoclasts that truly believes that everyone else is crazy...

And if they're not already, they will be when we've done with them.

 

[jwcn]

Why are you so scared of God's existence? Or rather, what scares you about your own life and your own actions to come to the conclusion that there is in fact no God, nothing above you that understands YOU more then you do yourself? Listen, LIFE is a game. Its a game of faith and all teh many reasons there are that disproves God are in fact there to tempt us in not believing. That is the game, it would be too easy for God to say yes here I am, you see me follow. That would be ha well, Hitler. No we need to be ruled history shows us that lonliness and depression shows us that. God is the answer to all matters of influence, atheism is just being scared to believe. Its the hardest thing to do and the scariest but once you do believe and you give your life to something more powerful then yourself, the answers to life become evident and clear.

 

[Cris]

Jwcn,

Who are you addressing?

Why are you so scared of God's existence?

Why do you think anyone is scared of the existence of a god? That sounds like theist propaganda to make theists feel good that they are courageous for being irrational.

Or rather, what scares you about your own life and your own actions to come to the conclusion that there is in fact no God, nothing above you that understands YOU more then you do yourself?

That’s a basic misperception regarding the atheist perspective as well as more classic theist propaganda that promotes the fallacy that disbelief in a god is based on some form of fear or personal limitations.

Listen, LIFE is a game.

No it isn’t. It is a battle for survival.

Its a game of faith and all the many reasons there are that disproves God are in fact there to tempt us in not believing.

Total BS. There are only numerous unsupported irrational claims for gods and no reason to believe such claims.

That is the game, it would be too easy for God to say yes here I am, you see me follow.

Or, because there is silence then good reason to suspect gods do not exist.

That would be ha well, Hitler.

More theist propaganda, liken a disbelief to something distasteful.

No we need to be ruled history shows us that lonliness and depression shows us that.

BS. So we should believe in a fantasy because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, right? LOL.

God is the answer to all matters of influence,

God is human generated imaginative fantasy.

atheism is just being scared to believe.

Atheism is a fully rational position of disbelief in the absence of any single scrap of evidence to suggest that gods, might, have ever, or will ever exist.

Its the hardest thing to do and the scariest but once you do believe and you give your life to something more powerful then yourself, the answers to life become evident and clear.

Nonsense. It is very easy to believe in a comfortable fantasy instead of facing the responsibilities needed to deal with a harsh life and the inevitability of eventual non-existence.

 

[Athelwulf]

Curiously that appears to presuppose an insight into the nature of God, as if she intended it all to be so beautiful and amazing, instead of enlarging our mind enough to cope with it all as the mundane event that it might have been to a God with a long list of creations to catch up with, whatever the pressure of that would be with infinite time allowed.

Alternatively, she did really know what she was doing. Some of the most amazingly beautiful people that I have known were insane and incompetent in ordinary terms, and with no particular intention to be so.

So... this god of whom you speak is not omniscient?

 

[Athelwulf]

That's a brilliant post. And just the sort of appeal to mysticism-cum-proof that theistic philosophers love and adore. If it wasn't counter to their ideals, I'm sure they would embrace it themselves.

I, for one, applaud you. This is a well-worded sentiment that I have always felt myself. It is what moved Sagan and Feynman. I've heard it as a railing against the false mysticism of the faithful, but never before as an appeal to the disproof of god.

Why thank you.

I suppose I should've shared this argument earlier. It's been dwelling in my head for a few months now.