Infinity and our Existence

[Kilroy_x]

It isn't important to the God of the Bible, because the God of the bible is described as fully Omnipotent.

[devonin]

But if the God of the bible is fully Omnipotent, and full omnipotence is a contradiction in terms, then one of a few things are happening:

a) We are misdefining 'omnipotent'
b) We are misdefining 'God'
c) We are mistaken in attributing omnipotence to God

[Kilroy_x]

Misdefinition of premises. Who is "we"? If by we, you mean the bible then we get the following:

1) The Bible is misdefining 'omnipotent'
2) The Bible is misdefining 'God'
3) The Bible is mistaken in attributing omnipotence to God

It is possible for all three to be correct simultaneously, but regardless of which you choose and what number, this reveals that:

The bible is not infallible.

In which case, you admit it is possible that there is no authoritative statement in favor of Gods existence, if you were the sort to think the bible an authoritative text.

Regardless of how you cut this, you get enough contradictions that there is no legitimate way to claim with the previously defined factors that there is a significant probability that God exists.

If by "we" you mean "all the interpreters of the bible", then the text ceases completely to have any functional use, because the text cannot be meaningfully understood by human beings.

Either way, your conventional avenues for showing support for the concept of God have just died. Any other argument you might have for the existence of God is easily refutable. This leaves you with nothing, except a hollow statement of possibility defined extra-logically.

You remember when Hume stated that even if a logician could prove the existence of God, it could not in itself lead to a robust theism because all specific properties of God, all issues of morality relevant to theology etc. , would remain unresolvable? Yeah, that's effectively what you now would have to look forward to if you tried to move forward from here. Nothing.

[devonin]

Well...thanks for doing all the legwork in proving correct the exact point I was trying to make. I like it when you do that.

[Artic_counter]

My way of seing this, is that infinity doesn't exist 'cause infinity is only the invention of the human kind. It was created by men to understand something they couldn't but by doing this, they only got a little farter away from the anwser. If you see it that way, our existence mean something and we are here for a reason. Altougth, there is somethings that I can't pull my finger on it... So many question that will never get an anwser...

[Artic_counter]

Originally Posted by chunky_cheese

Using Hollus's logic I can disprove time, infinity is forever, so there is no point in counting or using time, thus it is stopped forever. If our time does not exist to Infinity, and infinity does not exist to us, then what is time itself?

Time is nothing, only an invention of human being.
But in the other hand it's there 'cause it's a way of thinking.
I believe in time and at the same I don't believe in time...

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Artic_counter

My way of seing this, is that infinity doesn't exist 'cause infinity is only the invention of the human kind.

Prove it.

It was created by men to understand something they couldn't but by doing this, they only got a little farter away from the anwser.

Prove it.

If you see it that way, our existence mean something and we are here for a reason.

Prove it.

Altougth, there is somethings that I can't pull my finger on it... So many question that will never get an anwser...

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't an answer for it.

Originally Posted by Artic_counter

Time is nothing, only an invention of human being.

On the contrary, time is an observable aspect of the universe. It can be understood as either a distinct dimension or as a manifestation of the dimension of space.

[Artic_counter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Prove it.



Prove it.



Prove it.



Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean there isn't an answer for it.



On the contrary, time is an observable aspect of the universe. It can be understood as either a distinct dimension or as a manifestation of the dimension of space.

I don't have to prove anything to you and it's my way of thinking, I am only 14 and I'm devloping it and you too, you don't have any proof for your theory, so...

I once said: It's better to be quiet and look stupid than say somethings and prove it to us.

And by the way, I'm not saying that my theory is the best. I'm saying that it migth be true.

[Hollus]

Originally Posted by Artic_counter

I don't have to prove anything to you and it's my way of thinking, I am only 14 and I'm devloping it and you too you don't have any proof for your theory, so...

I once said: It's better to be quiet and look stupid than say somethings and prove it to us.

And by the way, I'm not saying that my theory is the best. I'm saying that it migth be true.

Um...If you're developing you'd learn faster if you actually have to prove your points, because then you're thinking instead of just saying random stuff. Second, I'm all for listening more than speaking, but when you do say something, you need support in the form of evidence. This is CT anyways.

[Artic_counter]

Originally Posted by Hollus

Um...If you're developing you'd learn faster if you actually have to prove your points, because then you're thinking instead of just saying random stuff. Second, I'm all for listening more than speaking, but when you do say something, you need support in the form of evidence. This is CT anyways.

I'm working on my proof 'cause it would be stupid to tell you what I'm working on, it would only be pure non-sense. Something intelligent would be to tell you the final awnser of what I'm working on but you do have a point.

By the way,I'm sure no one as actually prove with 100% sure that god do exist. Nobody show it/him/her to the whole world.

[devonin]

If you have no evidence for your belief that is appropriate to present as evidence for your belief, two courses suggest themselves:
1) Don't state your belief until you develop your evidence to where you can use it to defend your point.
2) Acknowledge the possibility that the reason no evidence has developed to where you can use it is because none such exists.

[ljw5021]

Mathematically you can't even begin to work with infinity without some limits to keep things sane. I am agnostic and my opinions are heavily based in math and physics, so I would probably try relating someone outside the influence of time to existing in higher dimensions.

But that's combining something with no evidence with something with evidence, and that's silly.

[Bamboozler]

Existence bears the relevance of whatever you believe is true and right. There is no one when talking about existence to give you a correct answer, you have only yourself and your opinion, and perhaps someone else's opinion on top of that. The same goes for any subject in the world. You can talk about why you believe something is right or wrong, but in the end, it doesn't change anything.

[rebelrunner26]

Originally Posted by ljw5021

Mathematically you can't even begin to work with infinity without some limits to keep things sane. I am agnostic and my opinions are heavily based in math and physics, so I would probably try relating someone outside the influence of time to existing in higher dimensions.

But that's combining something with no evidence with something with evidence, and that's silly.

This brings up another aspect... it can also be said that the universe as we know it is also a figment of the human mind because of what we have seen... we know this because of our eyes, which are just part of the body and will eventually shrivel up with the rest of us. This being said, it is possible that there are other dimensions (or planes, like in the Bartimaeus series, even though that's just a fantasy novel) that are not viewable or comprehendable by our minds (or at least our minds enclosed in human brains)

And as far as combining something with no evidence with something with evidence being silly....isn't that what religion does?

[ljw5021]

Originally Posted by rebelrunner26

This brings up another aspect... it can also be said that the universe as we know it is also a figment of the human mind because of what we have seen... we know this because of our eyes, which are just part of the body and will eventually shrivel up with the rest of us. This being said, it is possible that there are other dimensions (or planes, like in the Bartimaeus series, even though that's just a fantasy novel) that are not viewable or comprehendable by our minds (or at least our minds enclosed in human brains)

And as far as combining something with no evidence with something with evidence being silly....isn't that what religion does?

Yeah, that's why religion is silly.

[rebelrunner26]

well, that's not really what i was getting at...i just mean sometimes you have to back a theory up with knowledge that's more concrete...which isn't silly, that's part of life

[redskulll]

well even tho in a way religion is kina of silly, it was made to answer quistion, but in the time nowmost of them are answerd but ppl with weak mines have to look some were for somthing they can understand so religion in a way is the answer for them even tho in a way it wroung but it somthing ppl can look for and even tho the bilbe seems to say somthing and then say anther thing that makes those 2 staments seem both wroung well that just what ppl tho of a long time ago so what we shoudl o is proply make a newer version of the bible but the way things are that wont happen becuase then who going to write it?


sry for teh bad spelling btw im mroe math an since then english

[devonin]

Have you considered typing in a word processor first, running spellcheck and then pasting the text here? It will do a world of good making you be understood.

Though I disagree with your assertion that religion is an answer for people with weak minds. People need to stop thinking of religion (especially western religion) as being -just- about creationism and leaps of faith.

Don't underestimate the usefulness of a positive moral code on society either. Some of the most kind, compassionate people I've ever met have been devoutly religious people.

[atalkingcow]

Originally Posted by rebelrunner26

This brings up another aspect... it can also be said that the universe as we know it is also a figment of the human mind because of what we have seen... we know this because of our eyes, which are just part of the body and will eventually shrivel up with the rest of us. This being said, it is possible that there are other dimensions (or planes, like in the Bartimaeus series, even though that's just a fantasy novel) that are not viewable or comprehendable by our minds (or at least our minds enclosed in human brains)

And as far as combining something with no evidence with something with evidence being silly....isn't that what religion does?

No, That's called a Theory.

Religion takes something with almost NO evidence and considers it ABSOLUTE fact.

[rebelrunner26]

theory (n) -a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.