Jobar

"No infinity exists to be demonstrated!" - Leto II, God Emperor of Dune

Practically all the posts in this forum are about absolutes.

Think on it. God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent- sometimes omnipresent. All those 'omni's are absolutes- power, knowledge, goodness, presence. It's impossible to talk about gods, certainly the monotheist, Abrahamic God, without reference to something absolute, ultimate, infinite, endless. I want to start a conversation about the concept of absolutes, and just what we mean when we use these terms.

This will walk the line between this forum and Philosophy, as many topics here seem to do. Theology and philosophy are very close siblings, if not identical twins. Since my purpose is to prove the incoherence of the Western concept of God, I start this discussion here.

Physically, we know of nothing absolute, permanent, or infinite. Although we use the concept of infinity in many branches of mathematics, it is recognized that the word denotes a purely abstract entity, inhabiting a mystical land never to be seen and touched, but somehow weirdly related to the very foundations of the concrete world we live in.

The division between the abstract and the concrete is the frontier where we search for absolutes. Our mind's eye may imagine the absolute, the infinite, with some clarity- we can use these terms with some facility, and see how they allow us to understand physical reality. Yet when we try to figure out ways to look with our *physical* eyes in order to perceive endlessness, we always encounter limitations, and barriers, and even nothingness.

I have asked the believers here if they think God is abstract, or concrete. I don't think I have ever gotten a satisfying answer- for if they say He is abstract, that rather destroys the Biblical God who can part seas, speak to His worshippers, be angered, forgive, et c. If He is concrete, then where is He? So as a part of this discussion, I ask any believers to try to answer; as a hint, you might try 'both'. (But I warn you, that answer is also fraught with peril; it opens you up to pantheist arguments, as does 'neither'.)

I think every single argument for theism involves an attempt to demonstrate some physical, concrete absolute. Just lately we've seen lots of posts about absolute morality. (I note that this seems rather desperate to me; although morality is scarely as abstract as infinity, it *still* involves quite nebulous concepts.)

Of the unbelievers here, I ask- how do *you* explain the seemingly unbreakable linkage between the finite and concrete, and the infinite and abstract? From my own atheist/pantheist viewpoint, I have no problems with this, but I have wondered before how the purely materialistic atheists deal with the question. If the universe of observation is finite, but our best explanations of it intimately involve the idea of infinity- what do you think that means?

Taamalus

Again; I am new here and I do not post long posts with data and references. I am here only to relax and speak my mind.

From a disbeliever's perspective I think those absolutes derived from the urge to have the biggest god around there is.

Once there was a Moloch. To please him people sacrificed their offspring. Oh no says Abraham, my God is bigger and more powerful, and he told me I do not have to sacrifice my only son. Ha, says Matthew, Jesus dad send him down here he is the all-time true blue almighty, and you get a free lunch to heaven. Oh, you infidels says Mohamed, how untrue and perverse is that you say of a trinity god? One and only one, all loving he is, and he told me how to follow him. Between the Jewish, Christian and Islamic god I think god became as strong as needed, irrespective to logic. Faith got nothing to do with a logical assertion anyway.

The Latin Vulgate Bible gives those absolute terms. I am not saying Almighty is unequal to omnipotent. Yet almighty can also simply mean the biggest kid on the block. Like the Almighty New York Giants.

Eric H

Hello Jobar,

If there is a God, then the only God worth searching for is the creator of everything; this God must be very real.

Certainly the conflict within religion in trying to define what the true nature of our creator God is causes a great deal of conflict.

If there is a God then it makes more sense to say that the same God created all of us whether we are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jew, or even atheist.

If there is no God then you are right to hold your beliefs, if there is a God then probably many of my definitions of God will not be accurate.

Again if there is a real God then he must have a reason to ‘appear’ invisible to us.

My own personal thoughts on this are so that we may have freedom from God so we do not feel under any pressure to try and follow him. If we choose to follow God then it should be voluntary and willingly, we should not hold any thoughts of fear of damnation, or rewards in heaven.

Peace

Eric

rainbow walking

Hi Jobar, good post.

I see the concept of the purely materialistic used alot here also and I wonder if it's being used properly. I see nothing in that concept inherently forbidding immaterial, abstract interaction between elements of a material universe. We have conscious awareness from the brain, natural theoretical forces as attributes of matter, (all of which are invisible such that only their effects are actually observable). So I don't understand why someone uses "purely materialistic" as though it defines a person who holds no conviction that the abstract and immaterial exists or cannot be shown to be derivable from material explanations.

Jobar

Hello Taamalus, and welcome. (Is that Tah am ah luss?)

Well, maybe- but I see *science* as also a quest for absolutes. We search for a Unified Field Theory, and the ultimate beginning and ending of the universe, and final explanations for, well, everything. Even if we admit that we lack the ability for achieving total knowledge, aren't we trying to at least approach that- IOW, omniscience? (Heh, isn't *that* a highbrow pun? )

Eric H-
'Everything'- another absolute, don't you agree? Let me ask you this. Anselm's argument postulates a 'greatest possible being'. Which would you say is greater- a God who creates a universe *apart* from Himself, or a God so great He can only *be* the universe? (My pantheist's judo move on the ontological argument.)

rainbow walking-That's a pretty convoluted sentence, rw- if I'm reading it right, you are slightly misreading my position. I'm not saying (or implying) that 'purely materialistic' atheists say that the abstract or immaterial does not exist. I don't see many atheists denying the reality of mathematics! What I'm asking is, how do such- let's say 'non-pantheistic atheists', like ConsequentAtheist- explain the linkage of abstract things like, say, mathematics, to the material rocks and stars and living things, which comprise concrete reality? Do they deny that absolutes have any *abstract* reality, as well as *concrete* reality? (Or I could be misunderstanding you, instead of the other way around. If so, please clarify.)

rainbow walking

jobar:That's a pretty convoluted sentence, rw- if I'm reading it right, you are slightly misreading my position. I'm not saying (or implying) that 'purely materialistic' atheists say that the abstract or immaterial does not exist. I don't see many atheists denying the reality of mathematics! What I'm asking is, how do such- let's say 'non-pantheistic atheists', like ConsequentAtheist- explain the linkage of abstract things like, say, mathematics, to the material rocks and stars and living things, which comprise concrete reality? Do they deny that absolutes have any *abstract* reality, as well as *concrete* reality? (Or I could be misunderstanding you, instead of the other way around. If so, please clarify.)

rw: Convoluted? I've been getting alot of that lately...

I think it appears so because you have misunderstood me. I'm not accusing you of using "purely materialistic" in that way. I was thinking more of how Theophilus seems to be using it.

But, alas, I should have made this clear. I think I may be unconsciously by-passing needed info in my arguments because I am a two finger typist trying to keep up with a ten finger brain...

Or is that the other way around...

Jobar

rw, theophilus and his strictly materialistic atheists were much in my mind while I composed my topic here. (Bless his pointy li'l head.) One of the things I want to find out from this is if any such creatures actually exist- I don't think I have ever seen one, though maybe ConsequentAtheist qualifies. ReasonableDoubt, are you about? Care to comment here?

I see this thread has been read by several hundred people; I hope that some more of the extremely perceptive people who frequent this forum see fit to join in and give us their perspective. I think this may be a very useful and enlightening topic.

TiredJim

What exactly do you mean by "the seemingly unbreakable linkage between the finite and concrete, and the infinite and abstract?"

Eric H

Eric H- quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a God, then the only God worth searching for is the creator of everything; this God must be very real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote Jobar
'Everything'- another absolute, don't you agree? Let me ask you this. Anselm's argument postulates a 'greatest possible being'. Which would you say is greater- a God who creates a universe *apart* from Himself, or a God so great He can only *be* the universe? (My pantheist's judo move on the ontological argument.)
-----------------------------------------

I sense that I am digging a hole for myself, but in answer to your question, I would say a God who creates a universe *apart* from himself. A creator of all that is seen and unseen.

There seems to be an illusion within religion, that somehow individual religions almost seem greater than God.

There is almost the perception that somehow religion tells God what he is going to do.

If God exists then he is certainly invisible to me, and yet I believe that he exists.
I don’t have the time to research ten religions, and if I did research ten religions I still would not truthfully be able to define which one is correct. I am stuck with choosing one religion and I need a great deal of faith to hope that I am doing the right thing.

I.I. brings up many challenges and doubts about the Bible all very valid, and I do struggle with these doubts, but I still believe that God exists.

I am a Catholic and I struggle with the way that the Catholic faith is taught, but still I believe that God exists.

Beyond a doubt I am a cherry picker because not all the Bible makes sense to me. I still believe that the Bible was totally inspired by God and written by man, and somehow there is a purpose to it, which I do not understand.

If and only if God exists than he must be very real, I just need a great deal of faith to beleive he is very real.

Peace

Eric

Jobar

A good question. A full answer might take volumes of books, so I will use a single example.

Newton's laws of motion describe the universe in incredibly exact terms, up to very high energies. They allow for the solution of Zeno's paradox. We use his laws to calculate a vast number of things, from the orbit of a satellite to the design of auto airbags. We describe the concrete and finite motions of concrete and finite things with these laws, yet the laws themselves are abstract and require the concept of infinity. That seems to imply a very deep linkage of the sort I mean. There are many others, in both science and philosophy.

EricH:
Yes, you are; but if you dig your hole deep enough, you may come out the other side.

Which is bigger, a circle with another circle outside it, or a circle so big it cannot be gotten out of- one of infinite radius? (We're talking about God here, so we may use such things as infinite circles to think about Him.) A God so big that He cannot 'create' anything is bigger; a God which is truly infinite has no 'outside' in which to create something outside of Himself. There is no 'apart' from infinity. If He were to subdivide Himself, he could create things inside Himself, however.