Rejoice, believers, at this new theistic proof

SA_mkhya · August 3, 2005, 1:02am

Dear cyberphilosophers,

                     To conceive of a limit as such means that mentally, we must have gone beyond such a limit. It is only by realizing that one can go beyond a limit that one can realize that this is a limit.

It means that our intelligence can go beyond all that is finite, since it has the general idea of a limit. Therefore, our intelligence aims at the infinite.

It means that the infinite must be at least possible. If it were impossible, it would be sure that it does not exist. But if it did not exist, so the intelligence would aim at something non-existent. It would aim at nothing. But it amounts to saying that intelligence would not at all aim at anything. And this is false de facto, since we realize that intelligence aims at something.

But if the infinite is possible in itself, and not only from our viewpoint, it means that it must exist. If the infinite is possible, in effect, it may mean two things:

1 - It exists actually
2 - It can be brought into existence by some cause

But 2) is impossible, for if the infinite does not exist actually, there is nothing but finite causes. And how can a finite cause or finite causes bring something superior to them into existence?

Thefore the infinite exists, and atheism is dead.

Objection: this can prove as well the existence of an infinite pain. We can conceive of a finite pain, but this means that we have gone beyond this finite pains. It means that our intelligence aims at an infinite pain. Therefore, an infinite pain is possible. But if it is possible, it must exist, for if it were merely possible, it would mean that some finite cause could bring about an infinite pain, but this is absurd.

SA_mkhya · August 3, 2005, 1:04am

I can’t answer the objection.

Dr.Satanical · August 3, 2005, 1:28am

Your first and second premises are both flawed, and ‘aims at’ is ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness.
Keep practicing dude.

SA_mkhya · August 3, 2005, 2:29am

Explain, please

Uccisore · August 3, 2005, 2:31am

I agree with Dr Satan, in that you need to define ‘aims’ for the argument to make sense to me.

The_Underground_Man · August 3, 2005, 3:10am

Interesting post. Now, here’s the breakdown:

No, that is wrong. A limit is a belief about something. It is a belief which states that: “further cannot be gone, or seen.” How does the individual know? Because the individual has not been able to concieve and believe of going any futher. Until it is demonstrated that one can go further, the individual cannot believe they can go beyond the limit which they see – which is, the farthest they’ve been able to go, or see someone else go. For example, I know that the fastest a car can go is (let’s assume, since I don’t have actual facts) 700 miles per hour. Now, can I concieve of a car going faster? Sure. Is my conception justified? No. Not until a car is seen to go 701 miles per hour is my conception justified.

Because one can concieve of something, does not mean, one must believe in what one has concieved. For instance, it does not follow that I must believe that there are pink unicorns on mars, because I have concieved of such an image.

(edit: I was writing late last night and I’m withdrawing the statement about mixing terms… err was tired sorry; the above objection still stands though)

SA_mkhya · August 3, 2005, 4:46pm

Dr. Satanical, Uccisore, here’s the author who inspired me:

Donceel:

Now I can know them as finite, as limited, only because something in me is always already beyond them and strives beyond all limits, toward the unlimited.

We can know a limit as limit only by being, in some way, beyond it. The idea of “limit as limit” contains two elements: “until here” and “not further”. The second element implies that something in me is already further. A man living in an immense, fenced-in domain does not know that his movements and the ground on which he lives are restricted and limited until he runs into the fence and wants to go beyond it or looks at what is beyond it. If my mind knows every reality with which it enters into contact, or might enter into contact, as limited, the only explanation of this undeniable fact can be that it strives beyond these limits, that the knowledge afforded by this reality does not satisfy it, that it wants more reality to know. And if this more happens to be limited in its turn, I am already beyond it with my intellect. it is not just this or that or the next limit which I thus transcend; it is every conceivable limit, it is the limit as such. The awareness of the finiteness of all that which enters my mind can be explained only by the fact that my intellect keeps pointing toward the illimited, the intensively infinite. That is the way, and the only way, in which I know God.