Theists, and atheists, what do you think of this argument? (it's a long one!)?

Question

First: All beings exist and all which exists is a being. The category of "all beings" represents the sum total of things which exist, physical or otherwise. We can say of everything in this category, and the category itself that a) x is x and b) x is not (not x). Everything is identical to itself, and everything is not that which is not itself. In practical terms, this means that an apple, say, is an apple, but it is also not that which it not an apple: it has a sort of conceptual boundary. Inside this conceptual boundary are apples, and outside, non-apples. A thing which exists is minimally defined having such a conceptual boundary: it is what it is, and it is not what it is not. Nothing is what it is not, or is not what it is.

It is no problem that God is identical to him/her/itself. This does not contradict the idea that God is unlimited. But that God is not what he/she/it is not does indeed contradict the idea that he/she/it is unlimited. This means MORE COMING...

This means that if a being exists, it must be limited and can not be unlimited. If it were unlimited, it would be what it is not. Now, you might say "Oh, Arnold, everything in the universe is God, that's why he/she/it is unlimited!" But this does not fully exhaust the idea of an unlimited being: even if the category of things which God is not is empty, the contradiction stands. In the same way, the concept of "infinity" in mathematics is not a true number, because if it were a number, it could be placed into a statement like (infinity)+1=x. Infinity is therefore less then (x), and is therefore not an infinity. Infinity is therefore a mathematical concept, but not an element of mathematics. Likewise, God can exist as a concept, but by definition he cannot exist as an element of the universe (the sum of all existences).

My argument is aimed only at an omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited, or infinite God.

This argument is not mine, I found it on another forum and thought I'd share.

Here's the link if you care to read the whole discussion...
http://www.amazon.com/tag/religion/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx417AUXOWKSRN&cdThread=TxT5UGLIDPQP4Q&displayType=tagsDetail

I agree and as I said I am not the author of this...

Answer 1

In one of my questions earlier, I tried to say something about God in the light of Christian’s/ Muslim’ point of view. Though, this does not in any way answers your question but just a point to get a space in what you are trying to say. ---

Most religions are of the view that god is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. If god is omnipresent, then where is the place for evil to exist outside god? If you recognize separate existence for evil, then you have to forgo god’s Omnipresence. If evil is another power that is outside, or challenging god’s power, then god is not Omnipresent. If he is not omnipresent and Omnipotent, He can’t be Omniscient. God loses his essential qualifications to be god if evil exits as a separate force.

Answer 2

Doesn't really answer anything. The basic assumption in your arguement is all beings exist and all that exist is a being. this is in reality an unprovable assumption--a faith based assumption. While dressed up in hoo-haa the arguement is at least logically consistent from the basis assumption. God exists or does not exist is likewise an unprovable and therefore in either case, for or against, is a faith based assumption. If what flows from a faith based assumption is logical (non belief in a diety requires natural law and science) belief in a deity requires magic for lack of a better word. Yet with the acceptance of either science or magic--from that initial assumption and the acceptance of either natural laws or magic-a logically consistent world view can be constructed. Attacks on points of logic for or against are doomed to fail with those with a firm belief in their basis assumption--because everything is logical from that point. Therefore the entire arguement of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent is only logical to those believing in the same basis assumption--so there is no point in trying to convert the believer.

Answer 3

Besides the point that not everything is a being, and that thing that are not beings also have conceptual boundaries, it does make sense. I think thought that this only proves that a god would not be limitless, not sure that it really deals with the existence issue.

Answer 4

i are available in the time of that maximum definitely anybody isn't sufficiently severe and aggressive on an identical time as debating a element. The kindest and maximum well mannered thank you to respond to a controversy is to make up your guy or woman. That has the unlucky effect of featuring the point objective audience or your readers with 2 strains of argumentation from which they are in a position to compliment... that's very susceptible, rhetorically speaking. that's plenty greater suitable effective to charm to from the prognosis of your opponent and supply a synthetic argument. regardless of the reality that, it is likewise plenty greater durable. there are a number of positions from the substantial techniques-blowing that rests upon a rationalist techniques-set or monetary fashions on an identical time with that of organic and organic and appropriate opposition. tell me, what number human beings comprehend how those frameworks are equipped, upon which assumptions they relax or what variety of epistemological positions they entail? very few... so, the debates you notice or learn at the instant are not debates. they are simultaneous monologues the placement 2 or greater suitable human beings communicate their techniques devoid of listening to what the different has to declare -- and, interior the top, persons of the point objective audience opportunities the only they already agreed with. each and every of the above skill is which you're a nicely suited-winger, no longer that they are extremely stable at debating -- and you will make certain my declare on the grounds that my pretension is that a leftist could adventure the alternative.

Answer 5

What if God exists outside mathmatical parameters--meaning that he can violate unlimited and finite sets in a way we cannot understand with our current knowledge? What if he exists, but not as a being? How can we have a concept of something that cannot be comprehended?

Answer 6

God isn't a being or a element

can't put measurable proof of existence on a faith

God is described as creator in the form of the word

AS in { in the beginning was the word and the word is God

the word didn't become flesh till much later where the word became flesh in Jesus but still was limited on taking that form of man

but unlimited in the works he did

all miracles he did was on faith the faith he had and the faith of the person who was receiving them.

faith requires no tangible evidence just belief

Answer 7

Let me give you the theistic version of Zebra's post:

"All beings exist and all which exists is a being."
A rock exists. Is a rock a being?

(In otherwords, your claim makes no sense regardless of the theisticness of the reader.)

In my experience as a philosopher, people with no experience of philosophy think things like "All beings exist and all which exists is a being" are philosophical.

Answer 8

Just another way the human mind tries to seduce the attention of pure consciousness with more language manipulation. What do you fear that keeps you trapped in this game that never ends?

Answer 9

infinity is a mathematical concept that cannot be achieved in reality, but so is a circle, you can get very very close, but never achieve a perfect circle...think about that

also absolute zero, you can get infinitely close, but never achieve absolute zero (kelvin)

Answer 10

"All beings exist and all which exists is a being."

A rock exists. Is a rock a being?