Atheist: Do You Understand this Concept of God?

Question

Please understand I ask this question only because I'm tired of hearing the same old "if God created the universe, then who created God?".

God is infinite. It says so in scripture. God is from "everlasting to everlasting." If you want a logical reason for this outside of the Bible just think, if time and space began at the big bang, then anything that caused the big bang would exist outside of time and space. Meaning the cause would be free of the constraits of time and thus infinite.

Now back to the mathematical concept of infinity. Consider the domain (- infinity, +infinity). Where does this domain begin or end? The obvious answer is that it doesn't. If something doesn't have a beginning then it doesn't need to be created.

Do you see how if we believe in an infinite God, he has no need to be created?

Note: this is not an ultimate proof that God exists but simply an elimination of a need for God to be created.

Southpaw: Yes I would like to help you stop people from making the "why are there still monkeys arguement". It shows ignorance of present evolutionary thoery and gives Christians a bad rep. Macro-evolution is problematic on entirely different grounds.

The universe is not infinite nor enternal. Common people, the nobel prize was just awarded to two scientists that confirmed the big bang.

To all those that say "I stopped reading when you cited scripture." Please keep reading I provided both scripture and logical evidence. I'm not trying to prove God's existence here anyways just shooting down this misconception that an infinite God would need a creator.

Answer 1

A negative definition is a definition which tells us what something is not, rather than what something is. It is a description which critically lacks specificity—not telling us what is meant by a term that we may apply any secondary traits, but informing us only of what it is not, which doesn’t help our situation at all.

For example, consider the following identification:

“I am not George W. Bush, Jr.”

Now, while it is true that I am not George W. Bush, Jr., this particular identification tells you virtually nothing about me. All it tells you is that I am not one particular person. It still leaves the possibility of me being any other individual on earth, or even any other responsive entity in the universe. As such, it critically lacks specificity.

Observing the information given to us about the term “God” – we can see that such identifications (infinite, limitless, and immaterial) are all negative in their meanings. “Infinite” is to be without a restraint of time, “Limitless” is to be without boundaries (perhaps in action, such as “omnipotence”), and “Immaterial” is to be lacking of a material substance.

The problem here is that none of these terms actually identify what “God”’s primary attribute actually is, and thus our inability to grasp or understand what we are talking about—i.e. what it is that we are discussing, remains.

Thus, we can see that not only does this objection fail to provide meaning to the term “God”, but also that it enforces the need for specificity in concept identification.

Answer 2

Sure, I understand that concept. But I don't think you can use the Bible as any kind of support for the argument that this concept matches reality. The Bible is clearly written at the level of understanding that various cultural groups had for "gods" around 3000 years ago. Much of this level of understanding has been shown to be naive or just plain wrong.

Here's a concept for you to consider: just because there was a Big Bang event, doesn't mean that the universe was created at that time. There are a number of proposed theories in which there was spacetime before the Big Bang. All that physics says right now is that it looks like there will be no means for us to see any kind of information from before the Big Bang.

So, we have two proposed theories: 1) spacetime has always existed, or 2) god has always existed, and created spacetime. Both proposed theories don't have any satisfactory answer for WHY spacetime/god has always existed. Bible believers very clearly prefer the 2nd theory, but it is actually the one that is MORE complex, and has MORE to explain.

I'm not saying that I think that some variant of theory # 2 might not be correct. However, I think that the explanation given in the Bible is a red herring. As long as we limit ourselves to the level of understanding that the desert nomads of 3000 years ago, we're not going to get any closer to the real answer.

Answer 3

I'm not an athiest, but not a Christian either.

Your logic proves that the universe exists. If you choose to worship the universe itself, so be it.

But the same scripture you mention implies that the being generally perceived as the Christian god is separate from the universe itself; there is always a biblical distinction between creator and creation. I think athiests (I was one in high school) agree the universe exists, but take issue with the notion of a supernatural being directing things as the bible describes.

Answer 4

I understand omniscience merely tremendous even although i'm no longer omniscient. Atheists do not attempt to disprove god. it may't be performed. we are no longer those making an outstanding reality about something's life. The theists are those making the statement that god is authentic without one shred of credible data. the burden of data is for this reason on the them. If I informed you that the earth is a huge supercomputer run through mice would you've faith me? No, for sure no longer. it will be as a lot as me - the author of the statement (or for this reason Douglas Adams) to back that statement up with some data. You seem to have a nasty habit of conflating cosmological boom, evolution and abiogenesis. enable's get some issues instantly. the vast Bang change into no longer the start of something. it really is merely as a concepts back as we may be able to extrapolate given the data. The ability/remember/spacetime change into probable pre-present and if so, would nicely be eternal. for this reason there is not any hollow on your god of the gaps to in tremendous condition into. Abiogenesis matches with what all of us study atmospheric situations on the early Earth and chemistry. Occam's razor signifies that the foremost argument that matches the obtainable data is authentic. mutually with the concept of a divine author makes any theory of nature more beneficial complicated, for this reason should be discarded. If a hypothesis is untestable or won't be able for use to make predictions, then it it valueless. the concept of god is untestable. Evolution, on the different hand, enables us to make predictions and attempt those outcomes and matches the obtainable data.

Answer 5

I was once talking to a friend of mine whos agnostic,and we were talking about the other planets in space,and the movement of the sun and moon. He said that if it was all caused by a big bang how come the solar system is so precise. It did make me think for a while but im still not convinced that all this was created by some god.

Answer 6

Funny enough, if you go back far enough into your Jewish roots, you will find that in fact that your infinitely existing God does have a beginning -- but is still infinite.

Specifically, delve into the study of the Qabbalah (make sure its the Jewish stuff and not the new age remix of it) and look for a concept called 'Ayin'. To define Ayin is to remove its meaning because Ayin is that nothingness which is so total that to say, 'It is nothingness' is to give it description. From such a total nothingness there is complete potential, even for an infinitely existing deity, and it is from Ayin that the Worshipped God arises.

Answer 7

Its not that we dont understand the concept. Its that you are using the Bible as proof of Gods existence. Atheists dont believe in the Bible. Why try to use it as proof? You are using a book that was first written down 1500 years ago. Then rewritten. Then edited, Then rewritten, Then edited, Then rewritten, Shall I go on?
You use this book and state the words in it as fact when you have no proof of anything written in it except the words that are written. That dosent make sense.

Answer 8

Josh - Can you understand this concept: What is written in your Bible means F&*%K ALL to me as an atheist. Proving your point by showing me a passage in a book proves nothing. It doesnt matter what the scriptures say - they were written by men. I have a HArry POtter book that says wizards fly on brooms and play games with flying balls....is it true?

Physics states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form into another - where does your God fit into that statement?

Answer 9

When atheists ask that question, they're simply pointing out the fallacy of religious circular logic.

We're well aware of how infinity works. We just say that to puzzle the theists who attempt to use the same "logic" to disprove established scientific theories. It is a ridiculous argument. That's why we say it to people who can only understand ridiculous arguments.

Answer 10

There is a fallacy called circular logic. You have mastered it. There is another called mere assertion. You have also mastered that. There is another call special pleading. In the encyclopedia, if you look up "special pleading" there's a picture of you. You haven't mastered scientific method, or Aristotelean logic. You apparently haven't even mastered picking up a physics book and reading it.

I know the Bible cover to cover. You want my attention, theist, then demonstrate you've even read the cover notes of a book on cosmology.