Gods Infinity Problem
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"Two times in a row of chopping up the quote. Let's just ask the monkey what he thinks without playing games here!"
The question was: "If you disagree, then please point me to the thread."
Who is playing games? I requested that you support your assertion.
Well, now we know who is actually playing games.
I did address the logic that leads me to believe that he thinks all theists hold these beliefs from his posts here in this thread. You don't address that, you cut it out of your quotes, and you require him to literally state it. I say let him literally state it one way or another then we both know.
Thanks for validating my statement by being dishonest...typical from you.
"Good for you! Avoid me at all costs."
Well I am trying to, by being with friends on this atheist website. So, why are you here?
I'm hear to read about the OP's assertion and question it right now. Not getting very far with it though, people keep on taking the thread off topic.
I am only responding to what you say...that sir, is allowed.
So you are here on this atheist website to debate the assertion of the OP of this very thread? Sorry, I don't buy it...that's dishonest. You are counter arguing anything that goes against your belief system, as has been evidenced by all the posts you have made since you arrived here...as pretty much all theists do who come here. I have asked you what objective evidence you have of your version of a god multiple times, you sidestep with dishonesty or deflection...that dishonesty is the tool of an apologist or troll. Is moral integrity an issue for you? Did you learn that from your version of a god?
BTW, the OP is using a well documented religious belief to point out a paradox...it is NOT his assertion. What part of this don't you get?
I didn't say it wasn't allowed, did I?
It doesn't mean it's keeping the thread on topic either!
"Not getting very far with it though, people keep on taking the thread off topic."
1) Once anyone begins a thread on any topic in any forum, it cannot be controlled and can go off in any direction.
2) If at any point in your post, someone comes across a discrepancy, a falsehood, poor logic, or an outright lie, they should immediately address this discrepancy. In any debate, the poster usually lays out three or four propositions, then a conclusion. But that conclusion is built on the propositions, and all of them must be valid. It is called "keeping them honest".
I am an advocate for honesty? Are you?
You've been told why repeatedly, by more than one poster.
THE CLAIM HAS BEEN A TRADITIONAL PART OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FOR CENTURIES.
How hard can it be for anyone to grasp that the ATHEIST author of the OP is repeating a longstanding theistic claim, not making a claim that he himself believes to be true? He's an atheist ffs, it's in his profile...
Sigh, you're asking atheists who don't believe the claim. This is a new level of stubborn idiocy I must say.
Are you genuinely unable to understand what multiple posters have tried to explain to you? The thread author isn't making the fucking claim, they are repeating it to instigate a discussion about the paradox they think it creates.
Fuck me, I could have taught this to a cat by now.
"Fuck me, I could have taught this to a cat by now."
That is clearly the best phrase of the month.
Thanks shel, I am cleaning diet coke from my laptop screen because of that one.
IMO such arguments can be fun exercises in mental masturbation.. However , as metaphysical propositions tend to be, they are unfalsifiable.
Plus, IF infinities do not exist. That is also an unfalsifiable claim I think. Right now, we don't know that.
Logic is not a reliable tool for establishing truth. Arguments in formal logic always begin with the implicit IF-----
That's as I understand. However, I'm a weak philosopher, so may be wrong
It would depend to which god you're referring. Infinite knowledge can be described as omniscience and not all gods can claim to have that. I recall some philosophic mumbo-jumbo that argues a god not being able to be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time, but I am as much a philosopher as I am a chess player, so I leave that to someone else more competent to deny or confirm.
Anyway by definition omniscience would mean never having to say you are sorry.
1. Genesis 6:6-7 (KJV) And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7. And the Lord said I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
2. Genesis 9: 21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything as I have done.
3. 1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it greived Samuel and he cried unto the Lord all night.
4. 1 Samuel 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the Lord repented that he made Saul king over Israel.
5. 1 Chronicles 21:14-15
So the Lord sent a pestilence on Israel; 70,000 men of Israel fell. And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but as he was about to destroy it, the Lord saw and was sorry over the calamity, and said to the destroying angel, “It is enough; now relax your hand.” And the angel of the Lord was standing by the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.
But in Christian doctrine their god limits his omniscience for the purpose of allowing free will.
But the Jains are going to be really pissed if there is no infinite knowledge which they insist is the inherent capability and goal of every soul. Still I wouldnt worry about them seeking revenge for your heresy David.
One of the first things I heard when I took a philosophy logic class long ago, was the omni god logic paradox (badly paraphrased):
"if god is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, why is there evil in the world?"
Either god is not all knowing, (which also makes him not all powerful,) why worship a finite knowledge/power god?
Or god is not all knowing and all powerful, but not all good. Which makes an argument for worship via fear, but is that really a god you want to worship and if you follow its rules closely enough, spend eternity with?
I believe you saw some of the debates we had here about how a truly "all knowing" god would require there to be zero free will, as everything is predetermined. And to punish/reward people for their predetermined choices (no free will) is well, crazy unfair, that would be sign of a demented/mad god.
I personally look at it from another angle. To know everything in existence, down to the precise location of every electron on every atom, and to calculate what they will do next, would require something larger than all of existence to process. Lets say there is 10^84 electrons in the universe, even if storing and processing all that knowledge managed to get completed in an astonishing small 1 to 10 ratio, we are looking at an entity that is at least 10^85 in parts.
What type of “infinity”?
For example numbers are “infinite”. (0,1,2,3 etc)
Now from 0 to 1 it is also “infinite”.
Edited to add clarity...”he” has been busy counting
None, but it is an extremely common assertion; so it is something that should be addressed.
Homer's gone very quiet, perhaps Nyarl's post has finally hit home the point he was failing to grasp?
Or he's been distracting by a passing butterfly, who can say.
It's a little disappointing that no theist have tried to offer the oft used, but utterly risible, omniscient lite polemic. I though perhaps Homer was heading that way, with his clumsy inclusion of literalism.
Anyway I have a moment so I'll play devil's advocate, it goes something like this...
Is your deity omniscient, does it know literally everything?
So it know the future then?
Yes, it knows everything?
So we can't have free will then, if it knows what we're going to do?
No, we have free will, god gave us free will.
I don't follow, you said god knew the future?
Yes, it knows all possible futures.
So it doesn't know which one will happen?
No that's irrational as it would negate free will.
But I thought you said it knew literally everything?
Yes, literally everything, but God created logic, so God can't defy logic.
It can't defy logic?
So it's not omnipotent either?
Yes, God is omnipotent, God has limitless power.
So it can do literally anything? And knows literally everything?
But it can't do some things or know some things?
No, not if that defies logic.
You're fucking kidding right?
Your assert that either I believe in a God that holds omniscience to the point of some sort of infinity paradox or I'm not really a "true Christian" if I don't subscribe to it.
You appear to be locked into some sort of "no true Scotsman" fallacy so you have the opportunity to swat at whatever strawman you have built around some image that just isn't there.
Too many fallacies that you don't care to see in your own logic whilst you pick at mine.
I haven't made a bare assertion you're not a christian though, have I. I've pointed out each time you abandon teachings that DEFINE what a christian is you do that yourself. So it's not a True Scotsman fallacy, as I'm not making an exception to exclude you from that group, YOU ARE doing that by abandoning the very doctrine that defines it, piecemeal in each new post. Please don't parrot logic back at anyone, you don't have even a tenuous grasp of it.
Yes, you're a fucking genius, what ever was I thinking...
Christ on a bike....
Lol, I'm not meeting your definition what something has to be, yet I am still one.
It's still not my definition, and you're still defining youself as something other than a Christian.
Your blinkered moronic repetition is nothing to laugh about, though it may be something to laugh at.
Lol. Here's what I'm understanding from you:
"It's not my definition, it's the definition I have in my head of what something is and you don't meet it by my terms and you aren't showing that to my satisfaction, so it's all on you that you are not showing me that you are one!"
Let's look at the dictionary definition:
"one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."
I ask myself, "Do I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ?"
I guess I do much more than not. Maybe not every jot and tittle, especially when his words were orally handed down for years before people wrote them. The core of what I get from what he said, it led me to find faith. There's a whole lot of good teaching there that I do believe in. Many people who profess to believe in Christ don't believe in a tortuous hell, nor are they Bible literalists, nor do they believe that God has to have some sort of omniscience to the point of a paradox.
I'm sure with billions of people professing to be Christians, there are many who don't meet Sheldon's definition that's "still not his definition"
Oh Homer ...” It's not my definition, it's the definition I have in my head of what something is and you don't meet it by my terms and you aren't showing that to my satisfaction, so it's all on you that you are not showing me that you are one!"
Strawman. Fuckin’ stupid twit.
Take up your “Christian” definition with other “Christians” in debate style (ya’ll have the same logic tequnique)
I clarify that statement with the actual definition of a Christian right below it.
Why quote part of what is being conveyed?
A bare faced lie or rank stupidity so great you can't read a simple sentence? I shall let others decide, but for the record then here are my quotes verbatim to show you have lied:
Please show a post of mine anywhere contesting this? Straw man fallacy alert...
This is not borne out by your posts, and I am hardly alone in noticing this fact.
Your hiding from your own biases about what you say makes a Christian when it's shone in your face.
Here's your quote:
"I'm not sure what you believe in, but its demonstrably not christianity."
How exactly is that biased? You have quote mined my post of course, as I'd expect from someone as dishonest as you, but do please explain where in there have I made any claim about the definition of a christian that differs from either traditional christian doctrine or the the dictionary exactly? Though given how readily you have tried to misrepresent word definitions in the past, it is hilarious for you to hide behind that rather facile definition now when it suits you.
I know you're none too bright Homer, but do you really think to provoke me by repeating this lie? However please do quote a single post of mine making any subjective claims about what defines a christian. It seems the idea touched a nerve with you anyway, so I won't labour the point, others have noticed the same thing after all.
Here's your quote:
"I'm not sure what you believe in, but its demonstrably not christianity."
No, that's one part of a post, you've quote mined, and it doesn't make any claims about the definition of a christian that differ from either the dictionary or traditional christian doctrine. You repeatedly lied that I was holding your claim to be a christian up to a personal definition.
I think I must have really hit a nerve, judging from how desperate your lies are getting. However that was not an arbitrary or subjective claim, you simply omitted the qualifying remarks before it. Where I pointed out how often you reject core christian doctrine, including the teachings in the bible assigned to Jesus, which you subjectively cherry pick, yet can offer no objective justification for.
Not sure Sheldon. You looked at my posts and you said what I believe in isn't Christianity.
I'm trying to say what I believe in is indeed Christianity, it's not limited to what you say it is.
You can claim it is, but your posts don't bear this out. You have also lied again, as the claim was nothing to do with what I personally think a christian is, as you keep trying to claim. You did the same to whitefire13. I didn't write christian doctrine, or the dictionary definition, and I have not once contradicted either.