<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nGrhMdCQHvo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nGrhMdCQHvo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
God is Impossible
- Thread starter Prince_James
- Start date
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jk6ILZAaAMI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jk6ILZAaAMI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kfnDdMRxMHY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kfnDdMRxMHY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/obZNtCzxfAk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/obZNtCzxfAk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/obZNtCzxfAk"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/obZNtCzxfAk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Last edited:
Sarkus, nothing can be outside of time, unless it is in stasis. Time is just a measure of the change in a system. If a god is doing something, like twiddling his non-existent thumbs, or contemplating the needs of the void, then time is progressing. If he isn't doing these things, in an attempt to salvage his possibility, he is not eternal, that is - he did not exist in an infinite number of states prior to the creation event. I admit freely that I am not disproving all gods, all gods are not the same. I'm just disproving most of the current monotheistic gods. Tell me about some other god, and I will disprove that one as well.
This is why most people think that the disproof of a god is impossible, because the word is too loaded. It would be like asking a mathematician to prove all proofs. It makes no sense. You have to outline what you want proven or disproven first, and as soon as you do, you corner yourself, which is why most theists won't even tell you what they believe in.
I'm not convinced that the ruler has an infinite number of discrete physical points on it. I know that pure mathematics pretends that there is, but the difference between the theoretical and the real leads to some conundrums. There is a famous paradox (Zeno's) based on what you point out regarding Achilles and a turtle. Check it out:
http://www.suitcaseofdreams.net/Paradox_Achilles.htm
It deals with the illogical results of an infinite sum of small parts. It is thought-experiments like this that make me think that the mathematical 'point' does not exist in reality. Just as a Mandelbrot curve could not really exist. There are fundamental particles that have measurable sizes, and it could very well be that the nature of "size" has a fundamental distance, just as energy comes in discrete packets.
So... the nature of what you point out is debatable, not a given. I think you should read through the proof a few more times until you see why the god proposed by most religions is simply not possible.
one raven said:
This is one of the trickier things to wrap your brain around, and I tried to cover it in the conclusions, but it is hard to conceptualize. First off... we don't know enough about causality and the history of the universe to know about its beginning or end. It could be that time was created along with the universe in a spontaneous event. Then it wouldn't have an infinite past. It may not have an infinite future, the cold death of the universe could lead to a situation with perfect stasis, where all the potential energy of the universe has "wound down". So the fundamental nature of your critique is also not a given.
All you are pointing out is that my argument would also apply to a universe with an infinite number of states. I agree with you. I don't think this sort of universe is possible, which is why the mind usually balks at the idea that the universe "always has been". It is a problem as uneasily approached as Zeno's paradox. And like Sherlock Holmes always said, if you have a paradox, check your assumptions. My logic is airtight, so one of the assumptions about our gods and our universe must be incorrect.
Which would not be surprising, our assumptions about both have a very long history of being proven wrong.
This is why most people think that the disproof of a god is impossible, because the word is too loaded. It would be like asking a mathematician to prove all proofs. It makes no sense. You have to outline what you want proven or disproven first, and as soon as you do, you corner yourself, which is why most theists won't even tell you what they believe in.
I'm not convinced that the ruler has an infinite number of discrete physical points on it. I know that pure mathematics pretends that there is, but the difference between the theoretical and the real leads to some conundrums. There is a famous paradox (Zeno's) based on what you point out regarding Achilles and a turtle. Check it out:
http://www.suitcaseofdreams.net/Paradox_Achilles.htm
It deals with the illogical results of an infinite sum of small parts. It is thought-experiments like this that make me think that the mathematical 'point' does not exist in reality. Just as a Mandelbrot curve could not really exist. There are fundamental particles that have measurable sizes, and it could very well be that the nature of "size" has a fundamental distance, just as energy comes in discrete packets.
So... the nature of what you point out is debatable, not a given. I think you should read through the proof a few more times until you see why the god proposed by most religions is simply not possible.
one raven said:
This is one of the trickier things to wrap your brain around, and I tried to cover it in the conclusions, but it is hard to conceptualize. First off... we don't know enough about causality and the history of the universe to know about its beginning or end. It could be that time was created along with the universe in a spontaneous event. Then it wouldn't have an infinite past. It may not have an infinite future, the cold death of the universe could lead to a situation with perfect stasis, where all the potential energy of the universe has "wound down". So the fundamental nature of your critique is also not a given.
All you are pointing out is that my argument would also apply to a universe with an infinite number of states. I agree with you. I don't think this sort of universe is possible, which is why the mind usually balks at the idea that the universe "always has been". It is a problem as uneasily approached as Zeno's paradox. And like Sherlock Holmes always said, if you have a paradox, check your assumptions. My logic is airtight, so one of the assumptions about our gods and our universe must be incorrect.
Which would not be surprising, our assumptions about both have a very long history of being proven wrong.
Last edited:
Well 5 is hard but 11 is doable
Time is only as you described inside of our Universe.
We can say nothing at all - and I do mean nothing - about that which is NOT WITHIN our Universe.
ANYTHING could be there.
I hesitate to use the word "exist" - as this implies physicality - where no such assumption should be made.
As soon as you go outside of the boundaries of this Universe then EVERYTHING you (or anyone else) claim is up for debate but is utterly and absolutely unprovable.
Then that is unfortunate. There ARE indeed an infinite number of points.swivel said:
There is also a theoretical minimum useful length (Planck Length - 1.616x10^-35m) where measurement is only useful, and indeed possible, down to that length. However, if length is truly analogue and not digital, then there are an infinite positions between any two given points.
I am fully aware of the apparent paradox.swivel said:
Whether you think it does or not is moot. Please name any distance you want between 1cm and 2cm - and I will name another - and that could carry on ad infinitum. Whether it is measurable or not is irrelevant.swivel said:
I have read it.swivel said:
I think it is limited due to definitions which are only known to exist within our Universe. As soon as you go outside you can know nothing about it.
If you are assuming that God is eternal, as you have in your disproof, then time most certainly could not have been created with the universe in a spontaneous event.
If God exists, and God thinks then time exists.
An infinite number of states does not only apply to an infinite past, it also applies to an infinite future.
There is no reason to assume that there is a "dead end" for time, so this reasoning does not hold water.
Even if only the future is endless there is still an infinite number of states for the universe, so "now" could not exist according to your "logic".
I obviously don't think it is.
I agree, and I am not insisting that the universe necessarily IS eternal.
However, your own premises:
1. God is a conscious, thinking being.
2. God is eternal.
3. God created the universe.
Insist that time IS eternal and has an infinite past.
As I said, in order for a thinking God to exist, time must exist, therefore if God is eternal, time is eternal.
Time does not only apply to discrete physical particles moving (another flaw in your logic) but it also applies to abstract movement as well.
Think about this for a second.
Can God really think, "I will create the universe" without the word "I" coming before the word "will"?
Thought requires time.
I disagree.
Define "universe".
The word "universe" is obviously a simple word created by mane, but it was created to represent an all-encompassing everything.
As such, there is no such thing as "our" universe, there is only "the" universe.
What we know about the universe is obviously quite limited, but nothing exists "outside" the universe, because if it exists it is within the universe.
The universe has no such bounds that you are arbitrarily assigning.
Anything that exists and that is knowable to / interacts with anything else within this universe.
And is this universe not "ours" - i.e. the one in which we live?one_raven said:
Stop being so picky.
So another universe could not exist, according to you? So concepts that allow for multiple universes are not possible, even if unprovable?one_raven said:
My point is that we have no idea what is not within our universe, agreed?
Therefore how can we make any claims about it - whether it abides by our logic, our sense of time, or anything that we can only know operates within our Universe.
ANYTHING may be outside our Universe (i.e. not within it) - and that "anything" is utterly unknowable (hence not within our universe).
It is thus ridiculous of anyone to lay claim to knowledge of it.
No. Not agreed.
I'm not just being silly and pedantic.
Nothing at all can exist outside the universe, because the universe is ALL that exists.
There is nothing that is not within the universe.
Now, I will certainly conceed that things that are entirely unknown to us exist beyond our knowable universe - i.e. there is a LOT we do not know - but that doesn't mean it exists outside the universe.
It's not simply being picky because that leads to a very important statement, which is that we have no reasonable cause to expect that the laws of the universe are not consistent across the whole universe.
That is, there is no reason to believe that gravity does not exist beyond what our telescopes can currenty see.
The ONLY reason to make that assumption is to make pieces of unprovable hypotheses "fit" - such as ridiculously absurd notions that would require multiverses to be a physical reality.
I'm not just being silly and pedantic.
Nothing at all can exist outside the universe, because the universe is ALL that exists.
There is nothing that is not within the universe.
Now, I will certainly conceed that things that are entirely unknown to us exist beyond our knowable universe - i.e. there is a LOT we do not know - but that doesn't mean it exists outside the universe.
It's not simply being picky because that leads to a very important statement, which is that we have no reasonable cause to expect that the laws of the universe are not consistent across the whole universe.
That is, there is no reason to believe that gravity does not exist beyond what our telescopes can currenty see.
The ONLY reason to make that assumption is to make pieces of unprovable hypotheses "fit" - such as ridiculously absurd notions that would require multiverses to be a physical reality.
We do not know! We can only choose to believe one side or the other. That is all we have!
The simple truth is that, whether we like it or not, it takes faith to believe that there is a God. And it also takes faith to believe that there is no God. Neither position is scientifically or logically provable. If truth is indeed the goal here, then this is the one truth that remains.
The simple truth is that, whether we like it or not, it takes faith to believe that there is a God. And it also takes faith to believe that there is no God. Neither position is scientifically or logically provable. If truth is indeed the goal here, then this is the one truth that remains.
But then that leaves nothing interesting to discuss.
Would you prefer to see philosophy be complete done with?
I know I wouldn't.
Philosophy is not about truths, rather reasoning - which is what this is about (or is intended to be about).
Can you prove this statement???
No - which is why I clarify OUR universe as being everything within it that interacts (i.e. is knowable - not necessarily known) with something else.
You can not know whether there is another universe, just like ours, sitting right next to ours in some trans-dimensional techno-babble way.
You can't know. It is unknowable. But it doesn't mean it is impossible.
Impossible WITHIN our Universe, sure - but given that we can know nothing about what is not within our universe it is wrong to say it is impossible.
Agreed - but by the "knowable" Universe I am meaning in the absolute sense - i.e. to be known it merely has to interact with something / anything.
No disagreement from me - but it's got zip to do with what I'm saying.
Analogy - we sit within our bubble of space-time.
The contents of the bubble are defined by anything that interacts with anything else - i.e. is "knowable".
It is NOT a hard-edged boundary - it is merely the boundary of what is "knowable", and thus as far as our Universe the boundary to what "exists".
Using this analogy, we certainly have no reason to expect (as you have stated and as I agree) that the Laws in one area are different from the Laws in another.
But - also using this analogy - we have no way, and can have no way, of knowing anything about what, if anything at all, is outside of that boundary. There could be another bubble. There could be anything / nothing.
But because OUR bubble is defined only by what is inside it (i.e. anything that interacts with anything else - i.e. exists), we can say diddly about the other bubble, if indeed one "exists" (but obviously not "exists" as in existing in our universe.)
There is no assumption (by me) that anything is outside our Universe - only that it is possible (and an actual mathematical certainty if you play around with probability
but that's for another day). The fact that we can not know it and that it does not exist (within this universe) does not make it impossible.Or choose, as I do as an agnostic atheist, not to believe either.
Why would you ask me a question, then answer it yourself?
The answer, in fact, is YES
According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
universe
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
You seem to be completely missing the point.
"Universe" is a word invented by humans to describe EVERYTHING as a whole.
If there is more than what we know to exist, it is STILL part of the universe.
Not our universe, the universe.
If the universe is ALL that exists, how can anything NOT be part of it?
Anything that ISN'T part of it, doesn't exist.
Then in THAT case, it is not possible.
But - also using this analogy - we have no way, and can have no way, of knowing anything about what, if anything at all, is outside of that boundary. There could be another bubble. There could be anything / nothing.
But because OUR bubble is defined only by what is inside it (i.e. anything that interacts with anything else - i.e. exists), we can say diddly about the other bubble, if indeed one "exists" (but obviously not "exists" as in existing in our universe.)
There is no assumption (by me) that anything is outside our Universe - only that it is possible (and an actual mathematical certainty if you play around with probability
What you are describing does not sound to me like more than one universe (which is not possible for the reasons I stated above), rather more than one reality - in which case it is simply pointless and not useful for a reasonable discussion regarding proving or disproving the existence of God.
It is really no different than saying, "Well, he is magic and that's why he defies your analyses."
It's not offering anything useful at all to a reasonable discussion.
If someone says that you can't travel to the Sun by flapping your arms and flying there, and you say that they can't prove it because it is impossible to prove a negative and you never know what powers in a parallel existence may decide to help you - while you may be technically correct, your answer is absurd, unreasonable and offers nothing by way of attempting disprove his refutaion of your absurd claim.
true, blind faith.
wrong, not faith, reason.
true at the moment, but it only take's one instant, one microbe to prove something exists.
however one is reasonable, the other is just blind faith, because of the lack of any instances, we most reason on the sensible side, it would be foolish to take something as true, simply on faith alone, dont you agree?
That is indeed a reasonable definition for our universe.
Yes - but "everything" is only everything that exists - and "exists" is only as exists within this universe. If something is utterly unknowable, from our point of view, it would be non-existent. But in the grander philosophical scheme of things - it could well exist - such as in another universe that operates with entirely different properties - or it could exist entirely outside the universes as we know them.one_raven said:
"Exist" as defined by our universe and as relates to our universe.one_raven said:
You can not know what is not within our universe.
Okay - another analogy.
You're in a room.
No way out.
No windows.
No light.
But the room is entirely self-sufficient.
What is outside?
Now imagine that the walls of this room are not physical - but are merely where interaction with anything else ceases.
What is outside?
Now position yourself OUTSIDE the room - philosophically speaking (not physically).
You look at the room (room A) - and you actually see two such rooms (A and B) - next to each other.
The person in room A has a word - "universe" - that he uses to describe everything that exists. To him, that is everything that is within his room. He can know nothing about that which is not within his room. He also has another word - "existance" - being everything knowable inside his room - everything inside his "universe".
The person in room B has the same words - but they are relative to him.
This is the dictionary definition of "universe" - from the point of view of the person within that universe.
BUT - what does the person outside the room see?
He, surely, must have his own definition of "universe" - of "existance"?
He can see two smaller universes, and he knows that one universe can never know about the other - but can certainly conceive of the possibility.
How does your definition of "universe" apply to a person in room A?
Does it incorporate the wider possibility of room B? Of the room enclosing rooms A and B?
Mine doesn't.
I am person A - and I can not know that there EVEN IS a room B. Room A might be all there is.
I use "exist" relative to within my own universe - as I see the possibility of their being a room B - which might operate on an entirely different set of physical properties, not to mention the room enclosing rooms A and B which are likely to be different again.
To me, in room A, the universe is everything that can interact with something else within the universe - i.e. bound within the universe.
Now - what if the person sitting outside of room A and room B actually created room A?
If person A has any way what-so-ever of interracting with person B then they are both within the universe.
If not, they are each a part of an entirely distinct reality, and as a result, are completely worthless, pointless and non-existent to each other.
If a planet exists further than we can see, and we do not know it exists (yet it does) it is still part of the universe, because it exists (even though we do not know about it). It can conceivably affect us in some way - regardless how minimally.
If anything exists in an entirely different reality, that can not interract with us in any way, for all intents and purposes it does not exist, therefore it is pointless to consider and fruitless to speculate about.
The universe is everything that exists.
That is not MY definition, it is THE defintion.
If not, they are each a part of an entirely distinct reality, and as a result, are completely worthless, pointless and non-existent to each other.
If a planet exists further than we can see, and we do not know it exists (yet it does) it is still part of the universe, because it exists (even though we do not know about it). It can conceivably affect us in some way - regardless how minimally.
If anything exists in an entirely different reality, that can not interract with us in any way, for all intents and purposes it does not exist, therefore it is pointless to consider and fruitless to speculate about.
The universe is everything that exists.
That is not MY definition, it is THE defintion.
Absolutely agreed - on all counts.
Agreed - to a point - because the Deist view of God is precisely that - one that is not within the/our Universe - that does not interact.one_raven said:
I agree that "for all intents and purposes it does not exist" - but it remains a possibility - along with the FSM and any other thing you care to mention.
And it is that possibility that is enough to eliminate the nature of impossibility - at least for this Deist flavour of God.
Well, the Deist God CAN interact, it choses not to.
You seem to have forgotten the point of the thread.
It is of course impossible to prove ANY negative.
That doesn't mean it is reasonable to assume the affirmative simply for lack of proof against it.
What is being sought after here is a reasonable refutation against the existence of God - "proof", as it were, aside from the fact that any negative is not "provable" 100%.
This is why I said:
"Well, he is magic and that's why he defies your analyses."
Wouldn't be a reasonable rebuttal of swivel's dissertation up there.
Though I do agree completely with your OTHER rebuttal (about a ruler having infinite points).