Expand Quote
Expand Quote
questions from an agnostic bored to death by obnoxious atheism and obnoxious monotheism:
if one god can bring itself into existence/have always existed, what precludes that possibility for a 2nd 3rd or 4th god, (etc.)?
couldn't an infinite number of gods have come up into existence at the same moment?
using the argument from the first video, why does each mind have to be made in the image of the same god? couldn't each mind be an image of a different god? couldn't parts of minds come from different sources?
why do people do people involved in organized religion make assumptions about things they know they cannot possibly comprehend?
In my understanding, as far as the multiple gods question goes, it has to do with the characteristics of of God not being caused and God's attribute of infinity. That is, an uncaused, infinite cause, cannot cause another uncaused, infinite cause, because by the very facts that the caused entity would have a) not always existed, and b) needed to be caused to exist, it would by default be a lesser being than the cause, and thus could not be God (if that makes sense). In other words, as far as my understanding of God goes, such an ultimate being would have to have always existed, and, therefore, a second or third etc. caused being would be less than ultimate, and thus not God.
Also, there are mathematical problems with an actual infinite number of things. While one non-complex being that is infinite is not contradictory, an actual infinite sequence (of individual gods or whatever) is impossible because you cannot add to or subtract from an infinite sequence. If you add two gods to an infinite number of gods, then you still have an infinite number of gods, if you add three gods, same thing.
I would say, following this logic out, the best conclusion is to state that there is one, uncaused God that exists.
Thus, I think the One God conclusion also answers (at least to some extent) your second inquiry about individual minds.
As far as assumptions, I think people in disorganized religion do such things more often.
All you're saying is that "God" cannot be defined.
Having said, we can trace the stories of the Christian god back to cultures that predate Christianity by thousands of years, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the story of Odin. Not to say it's faith-based plagiarism, but when ancient civilizations didn't understand things they imposed supernatural attributes to things they couldn't explain (much like the video about consciousness you posted at the beginning of this thread). Your own religion was modified greatly by Constantine based off of the beliefs of ancient pagan Saxons, not to mention the selective use of what was and what wasn't included in the scriptures you read via smashing together the Tanakh and certain 1st century pieces rewritten by the Greeks, as well as additional insertions/omissions by the Catholic church.
While that may or may not fall on deaf ears, if it gives you comfort, by all means roll with it... but it's no more valid than any other mono/polytheistic religion out there.
I'd also like to add that higher maths have absolutely no issue with the concepts of infinity, whether you're talking about it on a grand scale or infinite decimals in between whole numbers.
Also, while your comment about adding to an infinite sequence still equals infinity is correct, you're still adding to it, but the total is infinity (∞), not one (1). I can easily add odd numbers to a sequence of infinite even numbers in a sequence.
Just going point by point here to keep things organized (as I think this is fruitful discussion)
All you're saying is that "God" cannot be defined. *I am not saying that at all. In fact, God, as the highest metaphysical principle in all of existence has manifold characteristics and can most certainly be defined. Most simply: God is the uncaused cause of everything else that exists.
Having said, we can trace the stories of the Christian god back to cultures that predate Christianity by thousands of years, from the Epic of Gilgamesh to the story of Odin. *my understanding here is that these claims are shaky and when Christianity is closely compared and contrasted to other religions, Christianity emerges as unique. Also, Christianity historically weaves back through Old Testament Judaism, which stretches back to the very creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1) so it is an extension/completion of the oldest religion in history.
Nevertheless, given that historical world religions do have certain similarities (belief in a God or gods, codes of behavior, prophets, etc.) it is important to note that similarity does not automatically equal same. What I mean is this: if there are similarities between Christianity and other ancient religions, it does not automatically follow that they are all in the same category of ancient historical religious folklore. If you search out the historical factual evidence for Christianity, I firmly believe there is more than enough support for its exclusive claims.
JP Moreland here presents the evidence comprehensibly
Not to say it's faith-based plagiarism, but when ancient civilizations didn't understand things they imposed supernatural attributes to things they couldn't explain (much like the video about consciousness you posted at the beginning of this thread). *In the study of world religions, there are certainly traces of animism, but Christianity is by no means an animistic belief system. Moreover, human consciousness is supported by the philosophical evidence. Rene Descartes posited a 'second substance' necessary for consciousness and that substance is immaterial.
Atheists also posit a 'naturalism of the gaps' to try to explain away things that are best explained by the existence and casualty of God, such as information coded into DNA, the constants of physics in the universe, etc.
Your own religion was modified greatly by Constantine based off of the beliefs of ancient pagan Saxons, not to mention the selective use of what was and what wasn't included in the scriptures you read via smashing together the Tanakh and certain 1st century pieces rewritten by the Greeks, as well as additional insertions/omissions by the Catholic church.*This is not factual. The New Testament was written 200+ years before Constantine and the pre-Nicene Church Fathers articulated/ratified the core doctrines of New Testament Christianity well before the Constantinoplian counsels.
While the Canon of Scripture (which does contain the Hebrew Bible) was ratified through Constantinople/Chalcedon, it was in circulation well before that and is not suspect.
While that may or may not fall on deaf ears, if it gives you comfort, by all means roll with it...* I am actually reading all that you post and am quite interested in the dialogue
but it's no more valid than any other mono/polytheistic religion out there.* I think the historical facts show otherwise.
John Lennox makes a robust presentation here:
I'd also like to add that higher maths have absolutely no issue with the concepts of infinity, whether you're talking about it on a grand scale or infinite decimals in between whole numbers. *Conceptually, I understand this. Things such as a potential infinite regress are compressible in the mind. The problem lies with an actual infinite number of things, which is impossible. Nevertheless, we could wind up splitting hairs here: the point is that God is not an in finite bundle of parts, He is in infinite, uncaused, immaterial being.
Also, while your comment about adding to an infinite sequence still equals infinity is correct, you're still adding to it, but the total is infinity (∞), not one (1). I can easily add odd numbers to a sequence of infinite even numbers in a sequence. *there still would be no actual quantifiable difference.
This is an important thing to get, as atheists, such as Dawkins, argue against God presuming that He is believed to be an eternal bundle of parts. That would be easy to argue against, but it is a straw man, as Classical Theism holds (and the Bible teaches0 that God doesn't consist of quantifiable parts.
[ This video is brutally long, but Dr. Dolezal breaks Divine Simplicity down, i.e., God not consisting of parts
]
Topic: Evidence for God (Read 51621 times)