How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[Flaming Dragon Wang]

I don't believe in evil. I believe in different points of view.

 

[ComradeSAL]

@Flaming Dragon Wang: The "Prove me wrong" argument is no less inane when an atheist says it as when a theist does.

the christian god is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (among other things).

if this is true, then evil cannot exist. if evil exists, then it is either somewhere god is not (he isnt omnipresent), or he is unable or unwilling to remove it (he is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent).

In a literal sense, no, God cannot be omnipresent. However, God could have the ability to be omnipresent without any logical contradictions. This goes back to the whole "God chooses not to interfere" assertion.

Arguably, every time God creates something, he is to some extent choosing not to be in the created object. This is because if God created something that was as perfect as he was, the created object would simply be more God.

 

[The Executive]

Prove me wrong.

Impossible. Were there a way to logically explain the existence of God, there would be no need for faith, which is the cornerstone of Christian theology. "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe."

it's impossible to logically debate something (God) that doesn't logically exist without first accepting an illogical starting point (there may be a God).

Now then, to my original order of business...

Or did someone convince to you through logic that God exists?

Unfortunately, no. See above quote.

Let me pose a serious question about your faith, if I may.

You stated that "God is the sole reason I draw breath; I have devoted my life to Him in return." Let me ask you, then, what made you do this? Was it personal experience?

Yes, it was.

Disclaimer: It took me a while to compose this in such a way that it didn't sound like a sob story. If it falls short, I apologize.

I was born three months premature, so I was pretty small for a newborn (2lb. 8 oz). I had an atrial septal defect (hole between the upper heart chambers), ventricular tachycardia, and a few underdeveloped organs (heart, lungs, digestive system) so I was on life support from shortly after I was born. Within the first few days I had a grade 4 intracranial hemorrhage resulting in spastic cerebral palsy and loss of sight, hearing, and mental capacity. For the next 2 months, I was hooked up to an array of monitors and machines where I looked not too different from your average pincushion. The prognosis was, should I ever leave the hospital (the doctors said I wouldn't), I would be a stunted vegetable, immobile and isolated from the world. If I did leave the hospital, I probably would not survive my first year. My parents were God-fearing people, so they had long before sent word to everyone they knew asking to pray that I would pull through.

For reasons I'm still trying to figure out, God healed me. This was an instance where if you asked a physician why this occurred the response would be "this cannot be explained". It doesn't logically add up. I can see, hear, move, think, and interact as well as or better than your average 17-year old. Cerebral palsy is defined as an "irreversible brain condition", yet the only indication I even have it would be slight hemiparesis (decreased mass on one side of the body). The various marks and scars are the only signs that anything was ever wrong. The meaning of the word "irreversible" has not changed, and I logically should not exist in my current state. The interference of something else existing outside the realm of human logic (i.e. God) is the only explanation I see possible.

Thus, I believe in the Christian God and His teachings.

 

[snex]

In a literal sense, no, God cannot be omnipresent. However, God could have the ability to be omnipresent without any logical contradictions. This goes back to the whole "God chooses not to interfere" assertion.

Arguably, every time God creates something, he is to some extent choosing not to be in the created object. This is because if God created something that was as perfect as he was, the created object would simply be more God.

if he chooses not to interfere, then he is not omnibenevolent. an omnibenevolent being always chooses to thwart evil, by definition.

I was born three months premature, so I was pretty small for a newborn (2lb. 8 oz). I had an atrial septal defect (hole between the upper heart chambers), ventricular tachycardia, and a few underdeveloped organs (heart, lungs, digestive system) so I was on life support from shortly after I was born. Within the first few days I had a grade 4 intracranial hemorrhage resulting in spastic cerebral palsy and loss of sight, hearing, and mental capacity. For the next 2 months, I was hooked up to an array of monitors and machines where I looked not too different from your average pincushion. The prognosis was, should I ever leave the hospital (the doctors said I wouldn't), I would be a stunted vegetable, immobile and isolated from the world. If I did leave the hospital, I probably would not survive my first year. My parents were God-fearing people, so they had long before sent word to everyone they knew asking to pray that I would pull through.

For reasons I'm still trying to figure out, God healed me. This was an instance where if you asked a physician why this occurred the response would be "this cannot be explained". It doesn't logically add up. I can see, hear, move, think, and interact as well as or better than your average 17-year old. Cerebral palsy is defined as an "irreversible brain condition", yet the only indication I even have it would be slight hemiparesis (decreased mass on one side of the body). The various marks and scars are the only signs that anything was ever wrong. The meaning of the word "irreversible" has not changed, and I logically should not exist in my current state. The interference of something else existing outside the realm of human logic (i.e. God) is the only explanation I see possible.

Thus, I believe in the Christian God and His teachings.

ah so in other words, it was SCIENCE that kept you alive and saved you from dying, but you thank god.

and your claims about you not logically being able to exist in your current state are just stupid - if that were the case youd be poked and prodded by doctors until your condition were explicable. the fact that theres already a NAME for your condition means doctors understand it fairly well already. youre just lucky - nothing more. if you could show that the only people that got lucky like you were christians who prayed, then youd be onto something, but ill bet any amount of money that atheists born like you were have the exact same rates of luck that christians do.

 

[The Executive]

ah so in other words, it was SCIENCE that kept you alive and saved you from dying, but you thank god.

"Science" cannot cause the disappearance of an irreversible condition.

your claims about you not logically being able to exist in your current state are just stupid - if that were the case youd be poked and prodded by doctors until your condition were explicable

It wasn't any sort of genetic mutation or anything like that that can be feasibly duplicated in a laboratory.

youre just lucky - nothing more. if you could show that the only people that got lucky like you were christians who prayed, then youd be onto something, but ill bet any amount of money that atheists born like you were have the exact same rates of luck that christians do.

Probability cannot cause the disappearance of an irreversible condition. Irreversible means probablity equals zero.

 

[snex]

"Science" cannot cause the disappearance of an irreversible condition.

it was science that kept you alive in the first place. or does modern hospital equipment not count as science?

It wasn't any sort of genetic mutation or anything like that that can be feasibly duplicated in a laboratory.

Probability cannot cause the disappearance of an irreversible condition. Irreversible means probablity equals zero.

then obviously it wasnt irreversible, because it happened. dont be a fool.

 

[The Executive]

it was science that kept you alive in the first place. or does modern hospital equipment not count as science?

Science kept me alive. Science didn't reverse my condition.

then obviously it wasnt irreversible, because it happened. dont be a fool.

Look, I'm done with this. I've stated numerous times that I refuse to argue the point of God's existence in this thread because I believe it isn't something that can be proven or disproven according to logic. I was asked for information, and I gave it. Period.

If believing in one irrational thought makes me a fool, so be it. I value my personal conviction more than peoples' opinions about me and would be weak to do otherwise.

 

[ComradeSAL]

@Snex: Keep in mind that behemoth's original argument didn't involve omnibenevolence, which is a whole different can of worms. However, I agree that it is a a huge philosophical problem. I suppose I could wave some more "mysteries of the universe" stuff in your face, but instead I'll just be honest and say that one of the major things that is keeping me from being a Christian is that I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer to how things like the Holocaust could be benevolently allowed.

 

[AltF4]

Look, I'm done with this. I've stated numerous times that I refuse to argue the point of God's existence in this thread because I believe it isn't something that can be proven or disproven according to logic. I was asked for information, and I gave it. Period.

If believing in one irrational thought makes me a fool, so be it. I value my personal conviction more than peoples' opinions about me and would be weak to do otherwise.

You see, if we were two people just having a conversation in person, that would be a fine place to leave the discussion.

But this is the debate hall. A place where people make assertions and then justify them with logical arguments. Why would you come into the debate hall and then try to claim immunity from debate? All you've done is admit defeat and in a rather unflattering way.


I mentioned this a while back, and it has to do with the belief in miracle curing: Miracle Cures (or god healing people) ONLY ever happen when the circumstances are such that it is a complicated and not very well understood situation. To more succinctly make the point clear:

Why does god hate amputees? Not a single person ever.... ever.... has had an arm or leg regrown by god. Millions of people have arms or legs removed or damaged by injuries that they did not deserve, and they all pray for their injuries to be healed by god. And yet god does not answer a single one of their prayers, ever.

You can easily see the most logical conclusion.

 

[RDK]

@Snex: Keep in mind that behemoth's original argument didn't involve omnibenevolence, which is a whole different can of worms. However, I agree that it is a a huge philosophical problem. I suppose I could wave some more "mysteries of the universe" stuff in your face, but instead I'll just be honest and say that one of the major things that is keeping me from being a Christian is that I have not yet heard a satisfactory answer to how things like the Holocaust could be benevolently planned.

That's part of how the concept of the Christian God is self-defeating. Omnipotence is virtually impossible in and of itself.

I know it's a tired old argument, but the "God creating a rock he can't lift" argument applies here.

 

[AltF4]

-Omnipotence violates locality and thus causality.

-Omniscience violates the Uncertainty Principle

-Superbenevolence (all-goodness?) is just ridiculous since morality itself is relative. There's no such thing as "perfectly good".

 

[ComradeSAL]

Red Darkstar Kirby, you don't actually want me to address that argument, do you? I think most educated people already know why it's wrong.

 

[RDK]

Red Darkstar Kirby, you don't actually want me to address that argument, do you? I think most educated people already know why it's wrong.

Alt's response was better than mine, as per usual. He got across what I was trying to say.

Omnipresence is also impossible; God cannot be mutually exclusive to himself.

 

[The Executive]

But this is the debate hall. A place where people make assertions and then justify them with logical arguments. Why would you come into the debate hall and then try to claim immunity from debate? All you've done is admit defeat and in a rather unflattering way.

Yes, this is the debate hall. I have made an assertion for which there is no logical justification. As such, this discussion could continue indefinitely with you asking me for a rebuttal I cannot give.

I claim no immunity from debate.

Making illogical assertions in a logic-based environment is defeat in itself, I have nothing to admit to save that.

Up until this...

I mentioned this a while back, and it has to do with the belief in miracle curing: Miracle Cures (or god healing people) ONLY ever happen when the circumstances are such that it is a complicated and not very well understood situation. To more succinctly make the point clear:

Why does god hate amputees? Not a single person ever.... ever.... has had an arm or leg regrown by god. Millions of people have arms or legs removed or damaged by injuries that they did not deserve, and they all pray for their injuries to be healed by god. And yet god does not answer a single one of their prayers, ever.

You can easily see the most logical conclusion.

...there wasn't an argument you had brought up I hadn't already heard or thought of. I don't have an answer for you on this one.

 

[yossarian22]

-Superbenevolence (all-goodness?) is just ridiculous since morality itself is relative. There's no such thing as "perfectly good".

I would hesitate before calling morality absolutely relative. That has some interesting problems associated with. Genetics leaves some room for a fixed morality.

it is not consistent with my memories if i see objects that i cannot grab.

Circular garbage.
So, did that memory just pop into your head, or was it based off of something such as, say, experience?
You are proposing (again) that we use experience to determine the validity or experience

i must either doubt my memory, doubt one or more of my senses, or doubt that reality is the same as it used to be. in every one of these cases, your claim that i use faith is WRONG.

And this cloud of doubt is universal. Even your memory is subject to doubt, so you really cannot trust anything you think your know.

repeating your lie yet again doesnt make it any more true.

Enlighten me; how do you apply doubt to everything and still remain certain about the validity of anything?

Short answer is: you can't. You seem to be under the deluded notion that faith is unreasonable and blinding.

I'd also like to rescind my statements on existence by necessity. Rejecting the subject necessarily rejects any modifiers, so an argument from necessity accomplishes nothing.

 

[snex]

you are the only idiot here claiming i remain certain about anything. i have never made any such claim. so stop lying about me.

 

[yossarian22]

you are the only idiot here claiming i remain certain about anything. i have never made any such claim. so stop lying about me.

So, you are claiming that you are certain about not being certain?
And that you are certain that you never said that you were certain?
Brilliant.

 

[snex]

right. try to cover up your lie.

 

[Taymond]

"Science" cannot cause the disappearance of an irreversible condition.

Science can inaccurately label a condition "irreversible," though. Just because a set of circumstances isn't understood doesn't mean that it's impossible to understand. Science is wrong about a lot of things, that's how we refine our understanding of events. All your situation does is give cause to reconsider our definitions.

You cannot give Science absolutely authority to decide what is "irreversible" and then turn around and use Science's failure to accurately describe a situation as an indication of the existence of a higher power. Science doesn't have that absolute authority. Science is wrong all the time. Science is fallible. Through its faults, we refine our understanding, we refine Science.

I have no personal problem with you choosing to believe that your God intervened in your life. That belief doesn't affect me at all, you're more than entitled to it. But you cannot try to use those events to convince us of anything, and you certainly cannot decide, invariably, how those events should be interpreted by everyone. If you decide to believe that God saved you, that's fine. But you can't expect us to refrain from asking questions that you haven't. Our beliefs are our own, too. If we want to wonder if, perhaps, science was simply wrong about the inevitability of your condition in the first place, we can do that.

I would hesitate before calling morality absolutely relative. That has some interesting problems associated with. Genetics leaves some room for a fixed morality.

What... are you talking about?

 

[yossarian22]

right. try to cover up your lie.

What a cogent argument.

What... are you talking about?

If morality is absolutely relative, then you cannot tell me what I ought to (not) do, so I reject absolute relativism as it is useless. Genetics allows for a somewhat fixed system of morality, as we share most of our genetic information with each other.

And the "God transcends logic" argument is an idiotic statement. If god transcends logic, he/she/it necessarily transcends every other concept and description. If that is the case, religion is useless.

 

[The Executive]

What a cogent argument.

If morality is absolutely relative, then you cannot tell me what I ought to (not) do, so I reject absolute relativism as it is useless. Genetics allows for a somewhat fixed system of morality, as we share most of our genetic information with each other.

And the "God transcends logic" argument is an idiotic statement. If god transcends logic, he/she/it necessarily transcends every other concept and description. If that is the case, religion is useless.

I know not whether to applaud or continue scratching my head.

I agree that morality is fixed, regardless of extent.

Are you saying that God is definable by logic?

 

[yossarian22]

I know not whether to applaud or continue scratching my head.

Let's go with applaud shall we?

I agree that morality is fixed, regardless of extent.

I am also hesitant to say absolutely fixed, because cultures have some differences between them. Absolute morality requires a transcendent law, which is difficult (if not impossible) to reconcile with methodological naturalism

Are you saying that God is definable by logic?

I am saying that any concept we posses must be definable logic if it is to retain usefulness.
So yes, God must be definable by logic if it is to retain any value to us. Of course, this logic does not need to require accepting the premise of causality or anything else really.

edit:
I am surprised that nobody has posted this here yet
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
568 proofs of God's existence. If you think this is a serious site, please give yourself a lobotomy (if you haven't already)

 

[Knight-errant]

One thing I noticed is that you separate God saving Executive's life from the tools of science. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. While I believe that God can work in a supernatural, unexplainable, way, I think often he works through the natural. Executive wasn't necessarily healed supernaturally; God could have been working through the "tools of science" to make sure he lived.

Another point I wanted to address is this: that faith is blind and irrational. You're wrong if you believe this. God does not expect us to just believe him without reason. Check this out:

1Th 5:21 test everything; hold fast what is good.

(I've got more verses if you'd like) God *wants* us to question and be skeptical. He only wants us to believe things that make sense. When someone teaches something at church, does it actually agree with the bible? Etc. And if it's the bible itself you have a problem with, there are other ways you can see evidence for it's truth (prophecies fulfilled, scientically accurate things written before their time, etc).

Is faith involved? Definitely. But it isn't blind or irrational. God always gives us good reasons in the bible to believe what we believe.

 

[AltF4]

Science does not have tools for god to work through. If there is a god, he made the universe in such a way that not even he can interfere with it.

 

[The Executive]

One thing I noticed is that you separate God saving Executive's life from the tools of science. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. While I believe that God can work in a supernatural, unexplainable, way, I think often he works through the natural. Executive wasn't necessarily healed supernaturally; God could have been working through the "tools of science" to make sure he lived.

I think it was a combination of both, really. I've seen God work using both supernatural and natural means simultaneously.

Another point I wanted to address is this: that faith is blind and irrational. You're wrong if you believe this. God does not expect us to just believe him without reason. Check this out:

1Th 5:21 test everything; hold fast what is good.

(I've got more verses if you'd like) God *wants* us to question and be skeptical. He only wants us to believe things that make sense. When someone teaches something at church, does it actually agree with the bible? Etc. And if it's the bible itself you have a problem with, there are other ways you can see evidence for it's truth (prophecies fulfilled, scientically accurate things written before their time, etc).

Questioning what you believe is a good thing, especially for those who follow something without reason. If you don't know why you believe something, then why believe it in the first place?

Science does not have tools for god to work through. If there is a god, he made the universe in such a way that not even he can interfere with it.[/

Impossible. If something was created, it can also be destroyed. I count destruction as interference, don't you?

 

[The Executive]

edit: double post.

 

[RDK]

One thing I noticed is that you separate God saving Executive's life from the tools of science. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. While I believe that God can work in a supernatural, unexplainable, way, I think often he works through the natural. Executive wasn't necessarily healed supernaturally; God could have been working through the "tools of science" to make sure he lived.

But there's no way to prove or disprove this, so it's ultimately irrelevant. Speculating one way or the other doesn't help.

Another point I wanted to address is this: that faith is blind and irrational. You're wrong if you believe this. God does not expect us to just believe him without reason.

Religious faith IS, for the most part, blind and irrational. Science should always come before religion.

Religion basically takes what we already know from science and cranks it up ten more knotches of "what if", and sets a standard of rules and regulations based on made-up criteria. There's no reason to do that until we gather more information about our universe from science itself.

1Th 5:21 test everything; hold fast what is good.

Thank you for quoting the definition of science.

(I've got more verses if you'd like) God *wants* us to question and be skeptical. He only wants us to believe things that make sense.

Ironic, seeing as how the entire Christian faith is full of logical fallacies and utter improbabilities.

When someone teaches something at church, does it actually agree with the bible? Etc. And if it's the bible itself you have a problem with, there are other ways you can see evidence for it's truth (prophecies fulfilled, scientically accurate things written before their time, etc).

This is circular, seeing as how the events that were "prophesied" were recorded only in the Bible and nowhere else. That's like if I wrote a history book today about the world being created. The prophecy and the event itself is recorded in the same book. You can't base a book's credibility by bouncing events in question off other events in that very same book.

 

[AltF4]

Impossible. If something was created, it can also be destroyed. I count destruction as interference, don't you?

Please. I've gone at great length already to dispel this common fallacy. The universe need not have been created, see Hawking's No Boundary Proposal... or probably half of my posts in this thread.

 

[Knight-errant]

But there's no way to prove or disprove this, so it's ultimately irrelevant. Speculating one way or the other doesn't help.

My point wasn't to prove or disprove anything, it was merely to point out that God doesn't *have* to work in a supernatural way. Earlier some were making arguments against Executive saying, "God didn't save you; medical science did." I'm just saying God can work through medical science. Make sense? Relevant?

Thank you for quoting the definition of science.

Don't you think it's interesting that that definition came from the bible though? I'm just trying to say that when you say that we should question things that you're right. It's what God says as well.

Ironic, seeing as how the entire Christian faith is full of logical fallacies and utter improbabilities.

Name some for me. I know many Christians do, but I don't. I wouldn't believe what I do unless it made sense.

This is circular, seeing as how the events that were "prophesied" were recorded only in the Bible and nowhere else. That's like if I wrote a history book today about the world being created. The prophecy and the event itself is recorded in the same book. You can't base a book's credibility by bouncing events in question off other events in that very same book.

Look, I was only quickly giving an example, not trying to make you believe it. Besides, you have no idea what you're talking about. Many prophesies the bible makes came true in real history. The Jews being scattered as a nation and reforming is prophesied, Alexander the Great destroying Tyre is prophesied, etc. Those are real events that happened in history, not "bouncing events in question off other events in that very same book." Anyways, I'm not going to go out of my way to quote and prove those things because that's not what this thread is about (although I can PM you stuff if you want).

 

[The Executive]

Please. I've gone at great length already to dispel this common fallacy. The universe need not have been created, see Hawking's No Boundary Proposal... or probably half of my posts in this thread.

It's a nice read. Good waste of 5-10 minutes.

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

OK, so by accepting the existence of this theorized second timeline, which somehow exists both outside of the physical universe we live in and is where the laws of physics "determine the state of the universe" while clearly stating that the universe is completely self-contained and is not determined by outside forces. If the imaginary timeline precedes the real time Big Bang singularity resulting in the known universe, how can it not exist outside of something that came into being after it did? Ah, but that's where the imaginary part comes in!

I may have missed a point or two, but it looks to me like Dr. Hawking just tried really hard and fudged some variables to attempt to disprove the existence of God.

Edit: I made a relevant 500th post. Huzzah.

 

[snex]

knight-errant... uhh, how about the idea of a dead guy getting up after 3 days and saying hi to his friends? how about a global flood? virgin births? talking donkeys? men living inside of whales? the bible is FULL of this utter nonsense!

by the way, ezekiel prophesied that nebuchadnezzar would conquer tyre, not alexander. and nebuchadnezzar failed to do it, a fact that ezekiel later makes excuses for. alexander also did not lay it to complete waste like ezekiel prophesied would happen. the city has continually existed and still exists today.

 

[yossarian22]

I think it was a combination of both, really. I've seen God work using both supernatural and natural means simultaneously.

You can't remove the supernatural from God. Pantheism tries and fails.
edit: To be fair, pantheism technically succeeds, but can be considered superfluous

My point wasn't to prove or disprove anything, it was merely to point out that God doesn't *have* to work in a supernatural way.

Then god can be explained in a totally naturalistic way, making god an irrelevant concept. God must be supernatural out of necessity, as you must shift the notion of a causeless first cause onto it.

Earlier some were making arguments against Executive saying, "God didn't save you; medical science did." I'm just saying God can work through medical science. Make sense? Relevant?

Not really. You are proposing that God is the laws which govern the universe (or rather The law). Platonic theism (I might have the term wrong, it's been awhile since I have had to address it) is a fundamentally unwarranted system that proposes that the laws of the universe transcend the universe itself. Nice, but totally useless for theology.

Don't you think it's interesting that that definition came from the bible though? I'm just trying to say that when you say that we should question things that you're right. It's what God says as well.

Really, then why don't you question that God actually said it?

Name some for me. I know many Christians do, but I don't. I wouldn't believe what I do unless it made sense.

That depends on whether you are a fundamentalist or view the bible as an allegory. The problems with a literal interpretation should be fairly self evident (the bible pegs Pi at exactly 3), but even when used as an allegory, it contains massive moral inconsistencies (the actions of God can be considered hypocritical at best) forcing us to pick and choose which parts to subscribe to. Picking and choosing is arbitrary.

Look, I was only quickly giving an example, not trying to make you believe it. Besides, you have no idea what you're talking about. Many prophesies the bible makes came true in real history. The Jews being scattered as a nation and reforming is prophesied, Alexander the Great destroying Tyre is prophesied, etc. Those are real events that happened in history, not "bouncing events in question off other events in that very same book." Anyways, I'm not going to go out of my way to quote and prove those things because that's not what this thread is about (although I can PM you stuff if you want).

I'm unimpressed with self-fulfilling prophecies.

Edit:
Whoever thinks that religion is totally idiotic and illogical should read some Spinoza.

 

[yossarian22]

Here is Spinoza's argument in a nutshell.

1: Reality exists and is not dependent on anything else for its existence.
Spinoza himself refers to reality as Substance, but the terms are effectively interchangeable. Spinoza is fairly unique as he breaks the Dualism typically seen in theism.
2: We can differentiate two realities by some difference in their nature or some difference in their state of being.
Spinoza writes a proof of this somewhere. I'll have to dig it up, but this is not a particularly unreasonable point.
3: A reality can only be caused by something similar to itself
4: Reality can therefore never be caused due to premises 1 and 2
5: Reality is infinite.
A: If something is not infinite, it is finite and therefore limited by something
B: To be limited by something is to be dependent on something
C: Reality cannot be dependent on something under 1, so reality is infinite
6: If there were two infinite realities, they would necessarily limit each other, and therefore be dependent on each other.
Therefore, there can only be one reality.

Spinoza holds that substance, which is all that there is and ever will be, is God.

 

[AltF4]

The Executive:

Fudged some variables? You appear to have a pretty basic misunderstanding of what Hawking's even talking about. Imaginary does not mean "made up", but rather imaginary in the mathematical sense. You can substitute it for the word complex, if you prefer.

But if you suppose that you've found some kind of mathematical error in Hawking's reasoning, I'd certainly like to hear it. The rest of the scientific community as well.


Yossarian:

I'm not terribly familiar with Spinoza, so I'd like to hear what he meant by some of those claims. Like what does he mean by "Reality is Infinite"? Is that to say that the universe is infinite in extent? That sure would be a bold and baseless claim from someone of his era. We still don't know the answer to that question.

But ultimately, I think Spinoza was just missing out on some important aspects of math like cardinality. All infinities are not equal. In fact there are an infinite number of degrees of infinity! Each of which are larger or smaller than others. Two things can be infinite and yet one larger than the other.

 

[yossarian22]

Yossarian:
I'm not terribly familiar with Spinoza, so I'd like to hear what he meant by some of those claims. Like what does he mean by "Reality is Infinite"? Is that to say that the universe is infinite in extent? That sure would be a bold and baseless claim from someone of his era. We still don't know the answer to that question.

But ultimately, I think Spinoza was just missing out on some important aspects of math like cardinality. All infinities are not equal. In fact there are an infinite number of degrees of infinity! Each of which are larger or smaller than others. Two things can be infinite and yet one larger than the other.

When Spinoza says reality is infinite, he is stating that reality has no limit. He fleshes out the idea more in some of his works. I can't find at any of them at the local libraries, so I am going entirely off of the work in which he presented this argument. Degrees of infinity are sort of irrelevant to Spinoza's argument. If two things are infinite, they must necessarily share the same values or one must encompass the other (thus limiting it). That conflicts with 2 and 3.

 

[AltF4]

I don't think that's true, Yossarian. Unless I'm still misunderstanding what Spinoza is trying to say.

Consider the set of whole numbers {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...} , and the set of reals from -1 to -2. These two sets are strictly disjoint: IE They contain no common elements. One does not encompass the other, nor do they share any values and they are both infinite. Yet the set of reals from -1 to -2 is larger.

 

[yossarian22]

I don't think that's true, Yossarian. Unless I'm still misunderstanding what Spinoza is trying to say.
Consider the set of whole numbers {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...} , and the set of reals from -1 to -2. These two sets are strictly disjoint: IE They contain no common elements. One does not encompass the other, nor do they share any values and they are both infinite. Yet the set of reals from -1 to -2 is larger.

The set of whole numbers are limited, so they conflict with the notion of infinity seen in philosophy, which is essentially limitless (this is the view Spinoza subscribes to, at least as far as I understand it). The set of whole numbers is limited even though it is an infinite series. The number 2.71828 is absent, so the set cannot be considered truly infinite. The same goes for the second set.

 

[AltF4]

Okay, well then that definition of "infinite" is rather odd, and not at all how I've ever seen it. The set of Whole numbers is an infinite set... after all it contains an infinite amount of numbers. If Spinoza meant "must hold everything" by "infinite", then obviously there is only one such set: The set of everything. (Complement of the null set)

But that certainly doesn't need an elaborate proof, indeed it's quite obvious. Of course there's only one set which contains everything. And if you define "reality" to be this set, of course there's only one reality! But you haven't actually proven anything, all you've done is redefine words such that they no longer mean what they used to. So now when you say "there is only one reality" it has an incorrect connotation and is made deliberately to be misleading.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

If the universe is "infinite" in that regard, wouldn't that also mean it has an uncountably infinite number of time or space dimensions? If so that's a fairly bold posit.

Also I sense equivocation in the uses of "dependence" in rules 1 and 5B. The first seems to be in the sense of "reliance" or sustaining/deriving its existence whereas the second seems to be in the sense of having its properties being determined by parameters.

 

[Knight-errant]

knight-errant... uhh, how about the idea of a dead guy getting up after 3 days and saying hi to his friends? how about a global flood? virgin births? talking donkeys? men living inside of whales? the bible is FULL of this utter nonsense!

You're right, this is where faith comes into play a bit more. You have to actually believe that God has the power to do whatever he wants, including all the things that you listed. However, those things are much easier to believe when you see the that other things God said he would do come true (prophecies, scientific accuracy before it's time, etc).

by the way, ezekiel prophesied that nebuchadnezzar would conquer tyre, not alexander. and nebuchadnezzar failed to do it, a fact that ezekiel later makes excuses for. alexander also did not lay it to complete waste like ezekiel prophesied would happen. the city has continually existed and still exists today.

You're totally wrong. Check the history books and the bible again. Ezekiel says several nations will attack Tyre (Ezek 26:3); Nebuchadnezzar was just one of those nations, and he DID conquer Tyre. However, he conquered the *land* city.

Nebuchadnezzar took all Palestine and Syria and the cities on the seacoast, including Tyre, which fell after a siege of 13 years (573 B.C.)" (E. A. Wallis Budge, Babylonian Life And History, p. 50). The inhabitants of Tyre fled to a rocky island half a mile offshore. The walls on the landward side of the island were 150 feet high...The city-walls stood sheer above the sea: how could any army without ships scale them? Shore based artillery was useless at such a range.

This is consistent with Ezekiel's prophecy:

Ezekiel 26:7 "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers.
Ezekiel 26:8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you.

Later on in history, Tyre was attacked by Alexander the Great. He was more determined than Nebuchadnezzar, and actually built a causeway to the island city of Tyre. To build this causeway, he literally scraped bare the mainland city's ruins, which is also described in the Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 26:4 They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers, and I will scrape her soil from her and make her a bare rock.

And is confirmed again in the history books:

Alexander determined to build a mole to get his troops from the mainland to the island. The mole is said to have been at least 200 feet wide. It was constructed from stones and timber from the old city of Tyre on the mainland. In fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, the very foundation stones, timbers and dust of the city was cast "in the midst of the water" (Ezek. 26:12).

And as a final note, a modern city of Tyre exists serveral miles down the coast, however, the site of the ancient city has never been rebuilt. To sum up: Ezekiel was not wrong and the bible is consistent with the historic record.