In total there are 53 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 52 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes) Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
So whatever the big crunch hypothesis was, it jumped straight from hypothesis to fact!
Stahrwe wrote:For anyone to demand evidence that God exists to be satisfied God would have to prove he is infinite and I submit that creates a logically irreconcilable paradox.
You don't have to prove the characteristics of a thing to prove it exists. We need not prove the universe is infinite to prove that it exists.
Your arguments throughout this thread are swiss cheese Starhwe.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
This is just the St. Anselm ontological argument all over again:
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.
Many have added and augmented this argument such as Godel. Many refutations have been offered as well. The best is one Interbane mentioned--God's existence is already assumed at the outset. A valid argument would have premises independent of the conclusion that lead inescapably to the conclusion:
Premise 1: We observe that...
Premise 2: We also know that...
Conclusion: Therefore god exists.
To start off with:
"God exists because..." is not an argument but an assertion. The only reason we would resort to this is because no truly logical argument will work and then to defend this we then further state that logic won't work. If logic won't work then there is no way the truth of the assertion can be ascertained which renders the assertion pointless. It's arguing without offering an argument as a way winning the argument: "God exists and there's no way you can disprove it." Well, yes, that's true. I can't refute an argument that hasn't been put forth.
The math offered here simply confounds non-intuitive with non-logical, i.e. if a conclusion is non-intuitive then it cannot be understood logically. It sure as hell can.
No, that is not what it is. It is not a restatement of Anselm, nor is it a proof that God exists. I don't believe I made that statement or formulation anywhere in this thread. If I did was in response to someone else's ham handed error.
My point, from the beginning was and is that due to the vagaries of infinity, our minds would not be capable of understanding the evidence for God presented to us.
Instead of discussing that concept this thread has been about which end of the egg to open.
Frankly I am bored with this and sorry it did not open into an interesting discussion.
