Does God Exist?

[Mr Spinkles]

Ah, but Mr_Spinkles, that is the not the point I was trying to make. I think that the views most people have on the universe are ILLUSION... because it is based entirely on our binary system of meaning which is in itself an illusion (if you have no idea what I'm talking about, take a look at my Binary System post in the... World Philosophy?... forum)

Simple example. Our human senses percieve the sun as being bright, and being warm. Yet is it really? These feelings are based purely on human senses... other creatures would not necessarily sense the sun in this way. Then, we take it one step further. Within our minds we assign certain connotations to the sun, light, and warmth, connotations that are NOT based on our sensory observation but rather on our experiences and our ability to connect one subject to another. Sun: male, harsh, loving, life-giving.... light: truth, enlightenment, good, holy. Warm: comforting, safe, mother...

Physical science, psychology, religion... all attempts to understand and explore what is basically an illusion based entirely on human perception of things...

But Runt, if 99.9% of human beings perceive the sun as being bright and warm, then we have just discovered a tiny little peice of truth with only a .1% margin of error: that humans perceive the sun as warm and bright. Whether or not the perception itself is an illusion, the fact that humans perceive the sun as warm and bright is still true.

Science may not be able to discover truth to 100% accuracy....however, it gets much closer than religion can, since religion is not a method of finding truth but instead a set of supposed "truths" already established and affirmed to be true in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

Building off of little truths (like the fact that 99.9% of humans perceive the sun as bright and warm), we can discover more truth that will be useful to us and will help us understand our world. Our perception may indeed be an "illusion" created by our senses to help us perceive the world...but that doesn't mean the illusion is illogical or that we cannot understand it, or that the illusion is useless.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

dudley--

We all deviate from the objective moral law. So it would follow that a Nazi does too. We all deviate from our subjective perception of the objective moral law, so again, a Nazi does too. This does not go against what I'm saying.

Sure it does. You assume that an objective moral law exists, and that our differences in moral codes arise from no one being able to accurately understand/follow it. In reality, it's just as possible (and I would argue more likely) that no objective moral law exists. Therefore there is no such thing as a moral code that is objectively "better" or "worse" than another, any more than one person's favorite color is "better" or "worse" than another's. Just because more people like blue than most other colors in no way indicates there is an objective, universal, "true" color out there.

Mr. Spinkles said: I'm still not seeing where the all-encompassing objective moral law comes in that proves either we or the Nazis or anyone group's morality is "wrong" according to the universe.

dudley thoth said: No, your part of the human condition too. No one can see it.

And no one can see unicorns, either. Maybe that's because, just like a natural "true" morality instated by the universe, they aren't real.

Mr Spinkles: They beleived the Jews were subhuman, that's why they dehumanized the Jews. The belief that the Jews were subhuman was not a result of dehumanization, but the other way around.

dudley thoth: The belief itself is dehumanization.

In your opinion and mine, yes. In the Nazi opinion it was not dehumanization it was simply the truth.

Mr Spinkles: The Nazis, according to their worldview, did murder people. They knew Jews, gypsies, communists, etc were people, they just didn't think they were equal people.

dudley thoth: I'm sure that it was not concidered to be murder.

I'm sure the Nazis did not consider it to be wrong, but they knew it was murder. If "murder" can only mean wrongful killing, then we're just getting into a battle over symantics. If your argument is that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing, I certainly don't disagree with you. All this shows is that people try to do what they think is right. It doesn't follow that there is a universal right or wrong out there, any more than there is a universal "objective" color inherent in nature.

Whether one feels another person is "equal" or not is a subjective, not an objective feeling.

We are all restrained by our subjectivity (see above).

My point is that this observation merely means that differing feelings exist. It doesn't follow that there must be objective "true" feelings out there. That's just a wishful assumption, as I said earlier.

Thus our morality (that it is good to treat all people equally) is not logically superior in any way to a different morality (that all people should not be treated equally).

Argue that if you want. Personally I feel that by treating all people equally we achieve moral objectivity.

Compare this statement with what you said earlier--you said no one can see the objective moral truth. Are you going back on this?

The Nazis did think it was acceptable to cheat and steal.

Prove this.

Sure--Nazi troops would trick Jews into thinking that shaving their heads was to prevent lice, and tell them to give up all their valuables and strip down to enter shower rooms where they would were again tricked into thinking they would be cleaned. Like I said, the Nazis found it acceptable to cheat Jews out of life and then steal their belongings.

Hitler promised not to invade Poland, but Nazis were glad when he turned out to be a liar.

Prove that this was in accordance with Nazi morality. Furthermore, prove that it was in accordance with Hitlers personal standard of morality.

It was in accordance with both Nazi and Hitler's personal morality, because to them it was not immoral to lie if it served to further their agenda. The fact that Hitler did not apologize afterward, and that the Nazis did not depose him for lying shows that their morality did not require one to be honest to everyone all the time. Some people think it's immoral to lie to anyone, any time. Again, the jump from these observations to the claim that there must be objective morals in the universe does not follow.

The Nazis stole A LOT of stuff during WW2, and they thought this to be right.

People, regardless of their own particular laws, steal. But did they consider it to be stealing, that's the question?

No, the question is did they consider it to be wrong. The answer is no.

we could argue that the Romans did not crave power and wealth, and only gained their wealth and power by coincidence or peaceful means. Based on what we know about Roman conquest, this isn't the case however.

Your right. But all acts of war and conquest are morally justified.

I'm assuming you meant to say that -not- all acts of war are justified. That is your view, and it is subjective. It's not a matter of Romans "not realizing" what they were doing was wrong--it's a simple matter that they thought it was acceptable, you and I do not.

Clearly at the very least the political leaders of Rome craved power and wealth above freedom and equailty for all people (not just Romans).

Yes. But leaders do not always adhere to their own, or their countries, principles. Power and greed undid the Roman empire in the end.

Some principles outweigh others. If money and power are your main principles, you act on them even at the cost of other principles. If equality is your main principle, you act on it over money and power. Still no reasoning that leads us to believe there must be "true" principles to adhere to; just different ones.

My own standards of morality

What do you mean by "standards of morality"?

I mean what I feel is right and wrong.

What does the universe's one true objective morality say on this? No one can know, all we know is that we disagree.

Yep. no argument there.

Then you agree that the idea of a universal objective morality is utterly meaningless.

He is going wrong, because he's taking his own religion's/culture's emotional axioms (like altruism, peace, equality) and assuming that they are the universal objective axioms for all cultures/religions.

He demonstrates that there are "universal objective axioms" by covering a wide range of cultures who have very different universal views (You can't get much further apart than Hindu's and Greeks!) . There is no assumption.

The only thing he has covered is that most people beleive "it is wrong to do what I beleive to be wrong". That's pretty meaningless, and doesn't prove anything. Any trans-cultural beliefs of what is right and wrong merely indicate that different groups of the same species have some similar, basic thought patterns--not too surprising--doesn't mean the objective moral law agrees with our common thought patterns, or that an objective moral law exists at all.

I think peace is a good thing. I could probably use logic to figure out how best to acheive peace.

I doubt it.

Sorry, that didn't sound the way I meant it to sound. What I meant was that logic can help us acheive our moral goals (like peace).

we don't know whose morals come closer to them....all we know is that we disagree.

Yep, we disagree.

Only someone who can see the ultimate moral standard can fulfil it.

Like you said, we're all human, so no one can see the ultimate moral standard. Even if you beleive someone "more than human" told you, your opinion of that person (or thing, or dream, or whatever) is subjective, so there is still no way of knowing, and the whole idea becomes absolutely irrelevant.

Of course, for there to be any possibility of seeing the ultimate moral standard, it would have to exist in the first place. But that's like saying there is an "ultimate" kind of music to listen to or television show to watch. But just like morality, the 'best' music and TV shows are a human concern to which the universe itself is indifferent.

 

[dudley thoth]

To Mr Spinkles 8)

If everybody loved :love: each other do you think the world would be a better place?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes I do. :love:

And I think if my room was covered in blue wallpaper, it would look more appealing (I like blue). :mrgreen:

 

[Master Vigil]

Dudley, I do not doubt your love for god. I am indeed happy for you, I am only pointing out the idea of how your love of god is in fact true to you. But it is not for me. And my understanding of the Tao is true to me, but it is not for you. So therefore, both of our truths may not be true at all. But just subjective perceptions of the real truth. That is all I am saying. May the force be with you also.

 

[dudley thoth]

Dudley, I do not doubt your love for god. I am indeed happy for you, I am only pointing out the idea of how your love of god is in fact true to you. But it is not for me. And my understanding of the Tao is true to me, but it is not for you. So therefore, both of our truths may not be true at all. But just subjective perceptions of the real truth. That is all I am saying. May the force be with you also.

8) Cheers Mate.

 

[dudley thoth]

You assume... that our differences in moral codes arise from no one being able to accurately understand/follow it.

The differences in our moral codes are due to our differing perceptions of the the world around us. Our world may be on top of the highest hill, or in a dark hole deep underground. Unless we see all things perfectly we cannot attain moral perfection. And yet society(s) at large strive for such internal perfection, sometimes to the detriment of those who exist outside their 'magic circle' of redemption. Their goal is obvious, yet remains ellusive.

In reality, it's just as possible (and I would argue more likely) that no objective moral law exists.

According to your world view, of course.

Just because more people like blue than most other colors in no way indicates there is an objective, universal, "true" color out there.

I'm not to keen on analogies, but as long as we understand that colour and morals cannot be fully equated, we should be okay.

It's no good promoting one colour at the expense of all other colours.

"cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law" Galatians 3:10 N.I.V

To achieve 'colour harmony' we've got to use them all. Then we will be able to paint something beautiful.

If there is such a thing as a perfect colour, my guess is that it would be invisible, and therefore not subject to our perceptions, but this does not stop the artist attempting to create a masterpiece. Still, I'm not a philosopher, nor a scientist, so please bear that in mind before you debunk me.

And no one can see unicorns, either. Maybe that's because, just like a natural "true" morality instated by the universe, they aren't real.

:mrgreen:

dudley thoth: The belief itself is dehumanization.

Mr spinkles: In your opinion and mine, yes. In the Nazi opinion it was not dehumanization it was simply the truth.

Okay then.

I'm sure the Nazis did not consider it to be wrong,...

That's alright then....

...but they knew it was murder.

...or perhaps not.

If "murder" can only mean wrongful killing, then we're just getting into a battle over symantics.

It makes a great deal of difference.

If your argument is that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing, I certainly don't disagree with you.

Cool 8)

All this shows is that people try to do what they think is right.

I pretty much agree with this statement.

It doesn't follow that there is a universal right or wrong out there, any more than there is a universal "objective" color inherent in nature.

What are they trying to get right, then?

 

[Thrasymachus]

I am rather flustered by this forum. It seems to me that everyone within this forum knows exactly what God is, for in order to debate upon the existence of God, one must first know what God is. . . . Pray elucidate!

I have yet to see anyone, thus far, offer a sound definition of an entity such as this God figure, and I am not at all suprised, because I know that it cannot be done. How could it, if it be that such an entity is fundamentally incomprehensible to us? The point that I would like to make is this, and it is quite simple: If it cannot be conceived, then it cannot be believed in. It makes sense doesn't it? It seems to me, that this entire forum is in vain. No one really knows what it is that they are denying or affirming.

Accordingly, I think a more appropiate-- that is, a more sensible --debate would be, "Is the universe finite, or is it infinite?"

[stream:4204e792d1]C:\My Documents\My Music\Unknown Artist\Unknown Album (1 17 2004 11 31 34 PM)\Track 7.wma[/stream:4204e792d1]

 

[Mr Spinkles]

dudley thoth--

Ultimately morality is not about correct/incorrect perception but feelings. Two people can perceive the exact same thing (ie the color blue) and feel differently towards it. The feelings themselves are not "true" or "untrue"--they simply are. If one person likes blue and another person does not, it doesn't mean one of them comes closer to an objective perception of color--it simply means that they have opposite feelings towards the exact same thing. There's no right or wrong about it.

Now, objective perception obviously does come into play--but only after a completely non-objective feeling has been reached. For example, since I love the color blue, I might build a machine that manufactures blue paint...but not realize that the machine pollutes the air, which blackens that blue sky I love.

Clearly you and I agree on one thing--we can unwittingly go against our own principles without an accurate perception of things. But this doesn't change the fact that the principles themselves were arrived at not by accurate/inaccurate perception but feeling, which is not objective in any way.

The problem with Lewis' arguments is he assumes that if we all saw the universe the exact same way--the way it truly exists, beyond our inaccurate conflicting perceptions--we would all feel the exact same way about it, too. Once again, wishful thinking (reread the color example). There's no objective right or wrong way to feel about things.

 

[dudley thoth]

To Master Vigil 8)

First off, the existence of both evil and supreme GOOD is contradictory.

So, it is not so much the 'intelligence of God' that you disagree with, just the notion of supreme good?

And since god did not destroy evil yet, he could be ambivelant to it.

Again, I point to the cross (see above).

...imbalance is extremes..

Okay, but balance and imbalance are both opposites and extremes. How can you deny this? I suppose Daoist philosophy must need to reinterpret (or ignore) this fact in order to make sense. I only mentioned this because you said that Daoists avoid all extremes. I may be wrong (as yet, I don't see it), but it forces me to question the 'simplicity' of such selective thinking.

Earlier you said this;

...yes I do believe all good and evil to be subjective. For no two people have the same idea of what is good, and what is evil. ...I believe that good and evil only exist in our minds."

Okay then, lets take

...two people...

Shall we say, a devout Buddhist and a God-fearing Jew. Culturally they are poles-apart and yet, according to their basic ethical standpoints, they are very much alike.

Compare:

1) "I refrain from destroying life" (Buddhism)

"you shall not murder" (Judeo-Christian)

2) "I refrain from taking what is not given" (Buddhism)

"You shall not steal" (Judeo-Christian)

3) "I refrain from sexual misconduct" (Buddhism)

"you shall not commit adultery" (Judeo-Christian)

4) "I refrain from untrue speech" (Buddhism)

"you shall not give false testimony against your neighbour" (Judeo-Christian)

These guidelines and commands, I argue, are objective. They are, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, "Exhibiting facts uncoloured by feeling or opinions. Not subjective." This is what C.S Lewis successfully illustrates in 'the abolition of man'.

You said

The biggest problem is that whoever wrote that site was trying to compare eastern and western ideas, but you cannot do so easily. They have a wholy different way of thinking.

C.S Lewis was not, by any means, ignorant regarding "differences in thinking." (I Just had to mention that.) 8)

To a large extent, our view of the Kosmos always dictates our ethical/moral/scientific views, whether we be secular Athiests, Muslim, 'Hindu', whatever. Here lies the difference between 'Eastern' and 'Western' thought. Our opinions are world views. If an individual's opinions are in accordance with the Cosmos, then they hold correct/objective opinions. If my mental view of the Kosmos differs from your mental view of the Kosmos, our opinions are in danger of becoming subjective.

Returning to our hypothetical Buddhist and Jewish friends, while they both maintain the same Objective cosmological ethics, because their perceptions of the universe are, at many points, disimilar, their interpretations (relating to murder, lying, theft, sex) and motivations for maintaining them greatly differ, and are therefore open to the charge of subjectivity. So proper behaviour, proper respect, and good faith, while open to subjective interpretation, can be understood definitely. The very fact that the notion of properness/goodness is assumed is also evidence of this.

Of course, this doesn't mean that any one belief system, be it spiritual or secular, has the correct cosmological view, but the possibility cannot be denied.

Further, the secular athiest or religious practitioner needn't have complete information to be correct, s/he just needs to have acurate information ( I thought I better throw that in) 8)

And, whats more, if God has a hand on a particular belief system(s), the possibility that that belief system is correct greatly increases. So, I may be, as far as you are concerned, wrong, but the charge that I

do not know for sure

goes against the evidence.

Please, with this is mind, read again 'Illustrations of the Tao', or even better the whole book.

You said

...the ideas can change over the course of history.

As you can see, what was held to be 'Dao' in the past is also held to be 'Dao' today.

To clarify, C.S Lewis uses the word 'Dao' in the sence of 'cosmic-ethical-order', like Dharma, Rta, Maat, Me, etc.

Confucious was (as you say) not a Daoist, but he did maintain virtue (te) and taught CORRECT conduct, in relation to a presupposed universal harmony.

Sometimes there is debate over what is actually cosmically ethical. The fifth Buddhist precept "I refrain from intoxicants" is an example of this. Also, in ancient Mesopotaimia, there were particular cosmic virtues that were more to do with culture than Kosmos, such as, 'kingship'; 'priestcraft'; 'prostitution', etc (Campbell. J 'oriental', 1962/200, p.113-114). And so, I admit, there are exceptions, but we need to look at the bigger picture and avoid selectivity.

God Bless 8)

 

[(Q)]

I have yet to see anyone, thus far, offer a sound definition of an entity such as this God figure

Each individual’s definition of gods is accurate and credible to that individual, however you’ll have better chance at finding two matching sets of fingerprints than you will finding two matching definitions of gods.

So, if each individual’s definition is different then it is unlikely any definition of gods can be constructed beyond the capacity of ones creative imagination.

 

[Master Vigil]

I do not believe a perfect essence has intelligence, for that is a physical characterisitic. And if god had perfect intelligence (which if it wasn't perfect that would limit god) than god would know how to extinguish evil in no time at all. For it is in the nature of good to decrease evil as quickly as possible (in the westerners mind). But god has not. But yes, I most disagree with the idea of god being solely and perfectly good. Especially because something solely and perfectly good logically could not create something evil. Therefore, it only makes sense that the perfect essence, is in perfect balance with both.

It is true, balance and imbalance are opposites. But to be in perfect balance means that all opposites (including the idea of balance and imbalance) disappear. To be in perfect imbalance would be complete chaos. The goal for a taoist or even a zen buddhist is to get past those ideas of opposites and live in such perfect "balance" so that the opposites disappear.

It is true that world views are very similar, and that shows us that the Tao is omnipresent. But the simple fact that two people may not have the exact same ideas, causes the idea of everything being subjective. Of course the truth is objective, but our methods of percieving that truth is subjective. Both the buddhist and Jewish may have the same objective goals, but the perception of the path to those goals are still subjective.

And the idea of god being a hand in the religion was only written down by mortals, not god. Many religions will tell you that their god had a hand in their religion. That would mean many religions have the same possibility of ultimate truth.

And if that is how C.S. Lewis uses the word Tao than he is already mistaken. The Tao is nothing more than "The Way of the universe." How we perceive that way is subjective, and we get our ethics and morals from that subjective perception of the Tao.

Confucious taught correct conduct within society and civilization. Not within a universal harmony. Confucious' ideas may not have worked within a roman civilization or a native american tribe, or an egyptian civilization. His ideas were subjective to the civilization in which he lived.

So let me clarify, the Tao or "The Way" is one truth. How we perceive that truth will always be perception, not truth. And will always be subjective.

 

[BrandenTownsend]

good point. Thanks for all the good feedback everyone. I just want to say that i have read the scriptures and i wanted to get some response from people because i would rather have a wide variety of opinions instead of the bible just making one straight point over and over again.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

dudley thoth---

Perhaps C.S. Lewis' idea of one, universal, objective morailty would make more sense if everyone in all parts of the world had the same basic moral values. However, this is not the case.

There are many groups, including Nazis, the KKK, the Romans, the ancient Aztecs, etc. who do(did) think it is morally acceptable to murder and commit other acts that most of us in this forum may consider immoral by our subjective standards. In fact, even Judeo-Christian morality allows for murder under a variety of circumstances (the Old Testament orders the stoning of criminals, condones war).

C.S. Lewis' idea of moral objectivity is pure wishful thinking, based on only looking at certain selective cultures and religions that share moral values in common. If one looks at ALL cultures and religions, one will find that morality is based on subjective axioms which differ between all people, although it is true SOME axioms are shared between SOME religions/cultures.

The fact that some cultures share some axioms in common in no way indicates the existence of some divine set of obective morals--for every moral value that one group holds, there has been another group holding an opposing value. There is no objective set of morals held by all groups.

 

[Thrasymachus]

Each individual’s definition of gods is accurate and credible to that individual, however you’ll have better chance at finding two matching sets of fingerprints than you will finding two matching definitions of gods.

So, if each individual’s definition is different then it is unlikely any definition of gods can be constructed beyond the capacity of ones creative imagination.

You have missed the point that I was trying to facilitate. If there be a God, then this entity would be fundamentally incomprehensible to us because such an entity would be a complete negation of everything that we know, that is, it would be infinite, it would lack physicality, and it would be absolutely senseless (unable to be perceived). This being a given, it would be impossible for us to define and discuss the nature of such an entity, or anything else that cannot be perceived, because we would not be able to conceive of it, making it unintelligible to us.
We are finite beings and we think of all things in regards to time and cuasality, and it is therefore impossible for us to understand senseless concepts such as infinity and eternity. Accordingly, there can be no sound definition of God, irrespecitive of all those who think otherwise, for they know not what they believe.

When people say that they believe in a personal God, or even an ampomorphic (however you spell it), they are gulity of committing a grave contradiction; they are believing in entities that can be perceived by the senses. . . . It is just like believing in an angel or a unicorn, however, you wouldn't dare be foolish enough to call such things God, would you?

 

[Master Vigil]

Thrasymachus...

It is interesting that you used the idea of infinity in your post. We are able to define infinity using mathematics, although you can define it many different ways, it is still infinity. The wonderful thing about mathematics and algebra is that it does not depend on physicality. For if I asked you to produce something infinite of course you could not, yet we all can conceive of infinity and can even use it in algebraic equations. And the idea of a supreme being is not the same as the idea of an angel or a unicorn. For these things include physical traits that we see and can conceive. An angel is a human with wings. We can concieve humans, we can conceive things with wings. Therefore we can create angels. Unicorns are horses with a single horn. We can conceive of horses, and we can conceive of animals with horns. Therefore we can create unicorns. Now this is where you get into the concept of formal and objective reality in descartes theory. There are only 2 types of reality, that which exists solely in our minds (formal), and that which exists objectively outside of us (objective). Taking the angel and unicorn, they themselves exist in our minds, but their traits exist outside of us. Humans are not able to concieve of anything unless we know about it first, unless we can see it, or sense it somehow. Therefore to be able to conceive of something that does not exist outside of us is quite a amazing if not impossible feat. So how does one get the idea of an infinite, eternal, omnipotent being? It must exist outside of us, for if it did not, we would not even be able to conceive of these ideas. Or could it be that because the natural world is based on dualities, we know one side, and therefore create the other side. In which must exist for you cannot have one side without the other.

 

[(Q)]

This being a given, it would be impossible for us to define and discuss the nature of such an entity, or anything else that cannot be perceived, because we would not be able to conceive of it, making it unintelligible to us.

Well, there are billions of people in the world who appear to be able to conceive of gods considering they devote their lives to its belief. Gods seem to make sense to them.

We are finite beings and we think of all things in regards to time and cuasality, and it is therefore impossible for us to understand senseless concepts such as infinity and eternity.

I agree with Master Vigil on this one – we can most certainly understand infinity and eternity and we can put these concepts into practice.

Accordingly, there can be no sound definition of God, irrespecitive of all those who think otherwise, for they know not what they believe.

I agree, but only in regards to definitions that more than one person can agree. As I said, any definitions of gods are personal and cannot go beyond ones imagination.

It is just like believing in an angel or a unicorn, however, you wouldn't dare be foolish enough to call such things God, would you?

Again, I agree with Master Vigil. Many agree on the definitions of angels and unicorns. And I don’t see why a person’s definition of a god cannot include angels and unicorns. That is as plausible as any other definition. Six of one…

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Master Vigil said: >>So how does one get the idea of an infinite, eternal, omnipotent being? It must exist outside of us, for if it did not, we would not even be able to conceive of these ideas.<<

It does not have to exist outside of us--just like how we assembled the unicorn by combining horses and horns, we can assemble an infinite, eternal, omnipotent being from other things we observe. We observe living beings; we observe infinity in math; and there are many things that seem to be 'everywhere at once' (light, the wind, etc). God is a more abstract combination of things than a horse and a single horn, but imaginary nonetheless.

 

[Thrasymachus]

It is interesting that you used the idea of infinity in your post. We are able to define infinity using mathematics, although you can define it many different ways, it is still infinity.

Unfortunately, this is a very common misconception found amongst many mathematicians alike. Accordingly, I find it no coincidence that many academic scholars, such as mathematicians, are erudite theists! This is the problem with your assertion: Mathematics does not define infinity, for the definition consists entirely upon negations of what we know and experience in reality. Granted, there are many negations used to define infinity, however they all have the same underlying negation, namely, infinity is that which has no beginning and no end. . . .

The wonderful thing about mathematics and algebra is that it does not depend on physicality. For if I asked you to produce something infinite of course you could not, yet we all can conceive of infinity and can even use it in algebraic equations.

Again, yet another commonly found misconception. The ironic thing about mathematics is that, if it does not refer to reality, then it is vacuous, that is to say, it is completely meaningless (sensless). Many theologians would love to believe that mathematics is inherent within reality, however they neglect to realize that mathematics is entirely a construct of our human psychology; it is a construct of the mind, used to abstract reality, therefore making mathematics and logic illusionary-- you can wander the entire universe, and you shall never come accross a perfect circle, a perfect rectangle, a perfect triangle, nor any other significant figure. The ultimate reality consists of infinite varities and irregularites, and it cannot be synthesized with mathematics.

Whenever you use a vague application of infinity within a mathematical equation, you simply approximate that which is deemed to be infinite, for no man can concieve of infinity; we are, after all, finite creatures. This is what you must understand; we cannot conceive of infinity. It is unknown to us!

One last thing, we can use logic and mathematics to understand things within the system, but not the system as a whole. If the universe be infinite, which I feel confident enough to say that it is, then you could not explain it logically, and it would forever be obscured to you, just like the empty concept of God. What is more realistic, that the universe is infinite both spatially and temporally, or that it is finite, created by something unknown to us? Think!...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I agree with what you said in your last post Thrasymachus...except the part about the universe being infinite. Our universe is expanding, yes, but beyond all the galaxies, as far as I know, is just an empty vacuum. But if you consider an empty vacuum to be part of the "universe" then we're merely disagreeing over symantics.

I like what you said about how we define infinity (by negation) though....good point.