GOD AND INFINITY
Is God an infinite being? As the great Pantheist/Buddhist thinker Brett Neichin once put it, “when you point to something that isn’t God, you’ve just limited God.” If God and his creation are totally separate, one would wonder where God ends and his creation begins. If God is at point X, and the body of an object/person ABC is at point Y, then God is limited.
A way to argue this point would be, if this is true, it also means that Osama Bin Laden is God, that drugs are part of God, that excrement is part of God, that poisonous plants are part of God, et cetera. To theists this seems wholly absurd and unthinkable. One theist might ask “so you really think Osama Bin Laden is God?” The answer is “No. I don’t believe God exists”. However, if we are going to claim the existence of an unlimited being, we must be consistent. If the being is at one point, and not another, he/she/it is limited. To be truly unlimited, the being must be in all things, and be all things. The concept of God being unlimited is also weakened by the idea that the believers will be able to see God after judgment day. If God can be seen, then that means he has a shape, volume, color, and is thus limited. There is also the concept of God’s throne, which seems very physical, thus if God is sitting at a given point, at a given time, He has very physical characteristics, and is limited.
Thus, every inch of our entire universe must be a part of God if he is truly infinite. However, the problem with that is, things within our universe change, and it would seem that change, as was pointed out by Aristotle long ago, negates perfection. The point of all this is to show the absurd nature of the concept of an unlimited being.
PROOF OF GOD’S EXISTENCE
Can you prove the existence of God rather than just claiming it? The most popular argument used by theists to argue this question is the design argument (as they can only put forward arguments. No proof of his existence has yet been put forward.) The basic (and wholly circular) design argument from theists goes something to the effect of “if something as complex as life wasn’t created by God, then how was it made? Did it just pop out of thin air?” By the above argument, you are simply asserting that the world is designed and that God is the designer. This is NOT a proof.
Another argument is that every thing has a cause, and it is impossible to have an infinite regress of causes (this assertion has yet to be proven), and thus God is the first cause (another baseless assertion). Once again, it runs along the lines of “if God didn’t create the universe, who did?” The problem with this is that it is never proven that God is this alleged first cause. We could just the same state that all things need a cause, and thus wonder “what caused God?” The supporters of this argument want us to just accept the premise that God is the first cause, and does not Himself need a cause, which is a case of special pleading, i.e. a fallacy.
A counter - example to prove that God’s existence can never be proven unless he actually reveals himself :
(1) If there are presents under my tree, Santa Claus exists.
(2) There are presents under my tree.
————————————————————————-
(3) Santa Claus exists.
The above argument is perfectly valid.
Now suppose I used this argument, and pointed to actual presents under my tree. Would this be proof that Santa Claus exists? Despite the fact that it is a valid argument, this is not a proof for Santa Claus’ existence and the argument is hence unsound. To understand why, one would need a basic knowledge of sentential logic.
P = “There are presents under my tree”.
S = “Santa Claus exists.”
I will now construct a Logical Truth Table for all the possibilities:
These are all the possible “truths” for these two statements. Now note the second line. It is possible for presents to be under my tree, and it is also possible for Santa to not exist. Thus, according to sentential logic, P does not imply S. That is the reason that the perfectly valid argument does not prove Santa’s existence. Anytime that you claim that a totally ambiguous and unobservable entity (”Santa Claus,” “God,” “the Pink Unicorn,” et cetera) exists, and try to prove it pointing to something common, it can be argued that the existence of the common thing does not automatically imply the existence of the baseless and/or undefined thing you are trying to prove.
Complex life forms and the very existence of the universe does not imply God’s existence.
The following argument is the outline of all proofs for God’s existence:
(1) If X, then God exists.
(2) X.
——————————–
(3) God exists.
While this argument is logically valid, it does not prove that God exists because X does not necessarily imply God’s existence, thus the first premise is erroneous. This is why every argument for God’s existence can be shot down so easily.
To this point I have, in my opinion, discredited the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited God, and I have also shown why all arguments for his existence are somewhat fallacious. At this point, emotion comes in, and some theists might say that they feel God deep in their heart. A sincere gut feeling is not proof of anything, as many people sincerely believe many things, and many of these sincere beliefs contradict one another. Some theists might say that they can’t imagine a world without God. What is the point of life if God does not exist? I wonder what is the point of life either way.