How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2012, 07:05 AM
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
You claim that you 'know' the size of a god you don't believe in?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Magoo's post
04-11-2012, 07:13 AM
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
God wouldn't "have size".
Just as with "eternal" meaning "timeless", a god would have to be "spaceless",
"Infinte", in the theological sense is not "very very large", it's 'absence of dimensionality" at all.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-11-2012, 07:58 AM
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
Hey, Bucky.

So, uh, hi, uhm... What in the fuck are you talking about?

What's this special definition I'm using?

What cognitive dissonance?

Quote:If you say "he creates" you have invoked a concept, and used a word with a temporal association. "To create" REQUIRES time.

A naturally occurring entity within space-time requires time to create. This has to do with the nature of Entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Arrow of Time. But I don't see how that applies to the act of creating space time itself.

Secondly, language is limited (and frankly, I'm done with having semantical arguments on this site because most of the time, those making the assertions that meaning is fixed don't have a clue how language works and don't understand that the very act of suggesting a fixed meaning is an attempt at domination). As Susskind mentions, "Universe was never meant to be pluralised," and yet here we are grappling with the idea of the multiverse, a concept that was indescribable by our language mere years ago.

Does creating space-time require time? I'd love to see your proof.

We say "create" because that's what makes sense to us. I don't know that we actually know what God did to "create" the universe. Maybe shklee Kintleflaxed the universe. I don't know. For now, I think people can follow along without getting bogged down in semantics.

And as far as expecting others to believe, I don't expect anyone to believe anything. I do expect people to follow along with a simple argument. And the argument is explicitly explained in the way it's stated. God is neither infinite nor finite because he creates both. Both are limitations and he is beyond limitation. That's a simple argument. I don't expect anyone to drop what they're doing and run to the Wailing Wall upon reading it, but I do expect people to say, "OK, I see what he's saying."

So, I've tried my best to wade through your gobbledygook response, but know this. Don't ever tell me to remain silent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 08:23 AM
How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
(04-11-2012 07:58 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Bucky.

So, uh, hi, uhm... What in the fuck are you talking about?

What's this special definition I'm using?

What cognitive dissonance?

Quote:If you say "he creates" you have invoked a concept, and used a word with a temporal association. "To create" REQUIRES time.

A naturally occurring entity within space-time requires time to create. This has to do with the nature of Entropy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Arrow of Time. But I don't see how that applies to the act of creating space time itself.

Secondly, language is limited (and frankly, I'm done with having semantical arguments on this site because most of the time, those making the assertions that meaning is fixed don't have a clue how language works and don't understand that the very act of suggesting a fixed meaning is an attempt at domination). As Susskind mentions, "Universe was never meant to be pluralised," and yet here we are grappling with the idea of the multiverse, a concept that was indescribable by our language mere years ago.

Does creating space-time require time? I'd love to see your proof.

We say "create" because that's what makes sense to us. I don't know that we actually know what God did to "create" the universe. Maybe shklee Kintleflaxed the universe. I don't know. For now, I think people can follow along without getting bogged down in semantics.

And as far as expecting others to believe, I don't expect anyone to believe anything. I do expect people to follow along with a simple argument. And the argument is explicitly explained in the way it's stated. God is neither infinite nor finite because he creates both. Both are limitations and he is beyond limitation. That's a simple argument. I don't expect anyone to drop what they're doing and run to the Wailing Wall upon reading it, but I do expect people to say, "OK, I see what he's saying."

So, I've tried my best to wade through your gobbledygook response, but know this. Don't ever tell me to remain silent.

Amen.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 08:27 AM
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
(29-10-2012 03:23 PM)Egor Wrote:  What do you mean by an infinite being? Infinite in what way? Size? God has no size. Knowledge? The mind is not generated by a brain.

If you consider God to be a monistic entity, consciousness being one of His attributes, then your question loses meaning. If you consider God to be a defined being in a defined place, like the Christians do, then you're right--it's not possible.
Mind is an emergent property of the brain; it can't be otherwise.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 08:45 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 08:50 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
The cognitive dissonance is that a god would have to exist in a timeless environment.
An "action", (other than being "Special Plead"), REQUIRES time BY DEFINITION.
THAT creates a cognitive dissonance.
Actions are processes.
Processes requires time.
By saying "must remain silent" it means "come up with a coherent concept IN our language", or "you may as well just shut up".
You can *say* anything you want. It has no meaning.
*Saying* a god "creates", using an "action verb" by definition REQUIRES it to proceed within an assumed temporal dimension.

That's what the fuck I'm talking about. That's YOUR special definition.
You ignore the normal meaning of an "action verb", which can ONLY proceed in time, and just as William L. Craig, Special plead it out,
without an explanation, simply be your individual faith definition.

There can be no ACT of "creating spacetime" without time ALREADY in place. If you want to assert something fine.
Do not use a verb with a temporal association, and requirement, of necessity, BEFORE the temporal dimension exists.
The reason you can't use an action verb, is that there is no *time* before spacetime, in which the action proceeds.
THAT'e the reason for the "silence" necessity. Unless you can come up with an verb which does not *mean* "proceeds", (in time) you can't say anything without creating a cognitive dissonance.

Say anything you like. Action verbs in a timeless environment have no meaning content. Saying "god creates" is an *action* statement. THAT requires time, in the English language. YOU are attempting a redefinition, with no meaning content. You *may as well* remain silent. Action verbs used in the context of *timeless* environments create cognitive dissonance, and are meaningless. Apparently you need a Linguistics class.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:20 AM
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
Weight Watchers. Big Grin

What about the gods who resided in statues? Was it that they weren't infinite..? Consider There's also the belief of deity possession.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:24 AM
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
Hey, Bucky.

I was writing out a response, as I often do, in real time while reading your post. When I got to the end of your post, I deleted everything that I wrote because I realised that it was pointless to respond; for a number of reasons.

On a personal level, I don't appreciate the manner in which you spoke to me; for a number of reasons. I will not dignify it with a response.

I have made my point clearly, you have presented your counterargument. I'm content to leave it at that.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:41 AM
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
(04-11-2012 09:24 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Bucky.

"What in the fuck are you talking about?"
Works both ways.
YOU may not appreciate my tone.
I did not appreciate yours.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 03:58 PM
RE: How can an infinite being place himself in a finite space?
(03-11-2012 09:09 PM)Beren Wrote:  
(03-11-2012 08:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is also a problem, with the "interventions".
If a god created the universe, and the laws by which it would operate, any "intervention" is not really just *one* intervention.
For example if a god were to have raised a dead guy named Jesus, THAT act would not really be a single miracle. It would literally be trillions of miracles, (or perhaps a much higher number). If there was a guy named Jesus who died, and was buried, his physical body, at some point on the day of death would have ceased all it's chemical processes, and his brain cells would have become desaturated of oxygen, and been damaged beyond repair. If THAT same, exact Jesus was to have been brought back to life, ALL the exact same neurological and physiological processes, enzymes, particular DNA mis-matches, and products from all his life's processes would have had to have been restarted EXACTLY as they had stopped. That many countless trillions or gazillions of atomic, and Quantum Mechanical changes and states would have had to be reversed, and brought back to a prior state, in their exact same position, and then restarted up. So actually the ENTIRE UNIVERSE would have had to be changed. (See the Pauli Exclusion Principle). It's not "one" intervention or miracle, it's the reversal, and change of established physical laws and internal and external interactions, of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. There is no "single act within" the universe. ANY act in the universe, automatically changes the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
If the universe is a simulation on God's computer, he could just stop the simulation, then copy and paste Jesus from when he was still alive.
You do realize copying unlimited anything in a computer would fill up it's memory and hard drive, causing it to freeze up.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: