infinity is god

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I am new here so I hope I don’t offend anyone by breaking any established protocols. I thought I’d offer as my first post the train of thought that led me to believing in God or a higher being.

We as individuals all look out from our subjective viewpoint and try to make sense of everything that we observe. We try to establish a logic to explain everything, yet somehow the more we know the more we realise the limitations to our knowledge.

The more we look out, the bigger the scale of the known cosmos becomes. The more we look in,the smaller the particles we observe become.

We find that the energy contained in both the galaxies and subatomic particles becomes greater and greater.

So what we know about the nature of matter seems to be expanding infinitely whether we look out into the skies or into atoms themselves.

We have a finite capacity to understand. Therefore if we finite creatures are going to be able to continue to develop our understanding of what seems to be an infinite system we are going to have to make assumptions and see if they work in practice.

If we assume there is no God or higher being then this problem of the finite trying to understand the infinite is not helped. No damage is done either, so no disproof is revealed.

However if we assume the opposite, there is a God or higher being then we are helped in trying to understand the infinite. God simply becomes the infinite, the source, timeless, omnipresent.

2

hello, welcome to ILP.

im not sure why you assume that energy is an “infinite system” whch always continues getting “greater and greater”… science has identified ‘upper’ limits of speed (c), distance (expanding edge of the universal horizon), gravity (black holes), as well as the ‘lower’ limits of speed (absolute zero), distance/time (Planck’s constant), and our universal history (the Big Bang).

we do not see that everything is “infinite”, we see that it is understandable, i.e. that it has limits… quantum theories show how the smallest wavefield energies comprise all matter and higher energy structures, and superstring theory posits strings as the buildingblocks of quarks, leptons, etc. beyond that… there is nothing else. time and space literally BREAK DOWN at the subatomic level of Planck.

now, im not saying that there isnt anything MORE or LESS than these limitations, but i am saying that modern SCIENCE says that there is nothing beyond these. so, if your argument for “god” is that science says everything is “infinite”, that arguments fails, because science does not say this; unless you are refering to time itself as being infinite, or perhaps to the longevity of the totality of everything (all energy everywhere, i.e. all universes/multiverses/dimensions/membranes/etc, everything), it is true that THIS totality, by virtue of thermodynamics, cannot every “cease to exist” nor did it have any starting point, as energy cannot be created nor destroyed… but this doesnt seem to be the argument you are making, and even if it is, placing a god-being into the equation doesnt seem necessary nor helpful, and in fact muddies the waters quite a bit…

3

If infinity is impossible then god is impossible, by your reasoning.

Do you care to explain that???

4

form, i dont believe he is saying that infinity is impossible, i believe he is saying that it IS possible.

5

I understand but I wanted to see the OP react to the impossibility of infinity.

I assume he/she will avoid this argument because it destroys the premise of a finite universe.

If the universe is finite, and not impossible, then possibility & impossibility are left undefined by a finite Nature.

In that sense anybody could make God impossible by a simple assumption.

6

i dont really know what youre talking about… ill let the OP respond on his own here…
:-"

7

I just assumed infinity is impossible because I cannot comprehend the concept. And I have tried before…

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99… (feel free to start where I leave off)

8

agreed, infinity can never be actualized physically or in a materialistic, real-world way. its an idea, just as all numbers are ideas. there is no “7” out there in reality, floating somewhere in the universe; there are only groups of things which we count and sometimes say “ah, 7 things!”… its just human concepts, ideas, nothing more.

infinity is such an idea. clearly, however, it presents with contradictions every single time we try to apply it to the “real world”, i.e. to a material/practical/physical/temporal/extended existence.

9

For some reason, I doubt the OP understands this concept as you or I see it though.

Because if “god” is just an idea, then it is a simple fairy tale. And I become skeptical about the value of its (legitimate) discussion.

10

Wow lots of responses - thanks

first here is what I prepared for the first response

I am trying to say much of what is in your last paragraph, although I accept I am doing so in a rather simplistic fashion. I understand that science has defined limits in the way that you explain, but the history of science is littered with ‘ laws ‘ that subsequent study have shown not to hold true in all circumstances.

I believe that science is only beginning to scratch the surface of what there is out there and the future scientists will not see today’s limits as anything other than milestones.

In my world view time doesn’t exist, it’s just something that we observe.

Whilst science is very useful it is a limited way of understanding and is therefore incapable of untangling an unlimited system. it can get us closer to the truth but it alone can never reveal the truth.

What I’m trying to say is that try making the assumption that God exists as Infinity and see what that does to your worldview.

Now infinty and impossibility-

Thats really the point , assuming the existence of god gives infinity a possibility. it provides a workable concept of infinity to build into your world view.

11

i understand now. you claim that the universe must be infinite, even if science does not understand it as such, and because of this, there must be a god (or rather, it makes more sense to assume that there is a god) to account for this infinite nature of existence.

i wonder, however, just why you think that the universe must be “infinite”. infinity cannot be actualized because it entails impossibility, contradiction (it never ends, so how can it ever be a real, tangible, existent thing with an identity and a being if it never “stops” to be accounted for?)… basically, assuming my above understanding of your position is correct, how and why do you arrive at your assumption that the universe/reality is “infinite” in any real way? and just what exactly IS this way in which infinity entails?

12

We are faced with a choice , either the universe is finite or infinite.

Anything that is finite has a boundary. So a finite universe has a boundary. Any boundary can be defined by what is within it and what is without it. So if everything in the universe is contained by this boundary they can only be total emptiness outside the boundary.

If this were the case the universe, all matter and energy, would be on one side of the boundary and total emptiness on the other. TUshere would be an irresistible force applied to the boundary by a universe to expand into the emptiness.

So apart from problems associated with absolute emptiness there is also the simple structural problem to having in bounded universe.

Therefore I make the assumption that the universe is infinite and resolve many of the problems associated with this by making the further assumption that God or some form of higher being exists

13

I think that certain levels of reality are completely alive and conscious.
We aren’t aware of those levels, but they are remotely like a god.

The idea of “God” is a difficulty, but the idea of higher beings is assured.
We can be sure that there are things out there stronger and smarter than us.
We might call these things deities, or maybe someone would call a really big one “God”.
But, “deities” is a less restrictive and more humble word for our superiors than the word “God” is.
I see polytheistic societies as more tolerant and less dogmatic than monotheists are.
Likewise their gods didn’t have to be all-powerful and the best before it was enough, so in this context there is less greed for divinity.

Monotheism is an extremism. An all-knowing all-powerful transcendance is an extreme idea.
Extremes are distorted. Distorted preceptions are a difficulty, as is monotheism.

Pantheism makes sense because the ultimate level of being has no restrictions, and includes physical reality as itself.

14

I see reality as a combination of many finites and infinites.

If infinite ranges of possability exist, they assure that somewhere a super being will so happen to exist, due to the sheer variety of a possably infinite amount of different realities or modes of the same reality. This is why i said that the idea of higher beings is assured.

15

When I use the word God I do so fairly loosely. My definition of God is drawn from infinity. I don’t believe that there is any particular special relationship between God and people.

I also believe that planet Earth is not the only planet in universe containing life. If the universe is infinite, then there is bound to be life out there, some of which is more intelligent than us and some of which is less intelligent. These higher lifeforms are not what I’m getting at when I use the word God.

I don’t believe that God is something to worship. I don’t believe that God is conscious, God is the root, God is the collective consciousness of the universe.

16

If your definition is that loose, why define it at all?

Reading your first post, I fail to see how you’ve come to certain conclusions. How is it that the more we know the more we realize our “limitations?” While it is true that any answer has a range of questions attributed to it, that in no way implies that every time we make a discovery, we realize there are questions we can not answer. It simply means there are questions we have yet to answer (and yes, as long as there is a conscious mind, there will always be questions). You also stated that the scale of the “known universe” becomes bigger the more we ponder it. However, it was a fairly recent discovery (last few centuries) that we realized a vast portion of our universe is culminating something we know absolutely nothing about. And even more recently, we’ve come to discover that everything we see in the night sky only accounts for about 4% of all there is (96% being this stuff we can only “detect” indirectly). Your next point was that matter can be broken down infinitesimally. What evidence do you have that supercedes it stoping at quarks or strings? Yet another assumption i’m failing to see: “matter seems to be expanding infinitely.” Seems to whom? =p

Further, I sincerely bid you take caution with words such as “infinite.” By definition, it is never-ending. Something that does not end has no boundary, so we can hardly give that something a definition. Like Three Times Great said, how can it be if it doesn’t stop to be accounted for?

17

Sorry if I’m being too broad - I shouldn’t really have used the word definition, I only said my definition was drawn from infinity.

“How is it that the more we know the more we realize our “limitations?”

Take for example people who worshipped the sun, their belief system was unable to provide them with all the answers. They developed stable societies that lasted many generations. With knowledge of the true nature of the Sun came collapse, they simply couldn’t cope with all the questions that the new knowledge required of them.

This was the fate of many traditional cultures developed by human beings.

I don’t think we should stop looking, but I think we should stop assuming that we can find the answer to everything, or that there is an answer to everything.

My point about boundaries applied to a theoretical finite universe and not to the infinite universe that I assume to exist. I have no evidence to support my view that the universe is infinitely big and infinitely small. However there is no evidence to the contrary and study seems to reveal ever smaller particles whilst at the same time the extent of the known universe grows.

All I am tryng to say is make this assumption (infinity is god) and see how it works for you

18

Infinity is not god, it is not centralised nor has form in any way we perceive it. If you visualise a god it usually has form or is something, has being etc. infinity has none of these things, it is its own dimension and is empty. One usually imagines infinity as a very big place without end, but it does not exist in 3 dimensional world or any amount of dimensional worlds, it has no xyz positions and hence no shape whatsoever.

Infinity must exist, but it is not material [in the way we usually use that term]. We cannot say that our reality model is ‘an amount’ e.g. of universes unless we expand that into infinity which we cannot, hence there must be an infinite space within which all universes exist. If not then we have not fully described reality.

I posit that it is impossible for reality to have no infinity. Existence is limited in its material form, but that does not limit what reality in its entirety is.

That doesn’t mean it is just an idea, it means it is fundamentally real ~ moreso than anything else, at least by any measure.

19

Infinity is God, or God is infinity?

20

may be i should have entitled the thread infinity is god?

I am trying to link the notion of God with the notion of infinity.

“If you visualise a god it usually has form or is something,”

God doesn’t need a form or even need to be visualised