Basically, this one contradicts "god's" attribute that he is infinite- Read below for more


So, 1 compared to 2 is half- Like comparing a regular man to one with twice its power

And, 1 compared to 10 is much smaller, like comparing the strength of a man to that of an ape

And, 1 compared to a billion, is barely anything, like the strength of a man compared to a volcano

So that means, anything compared to infinite would be nothing, correct?


So if god is infinite, that means everything else must not exist-Or we do exist, and he doesn't.

Views: 679

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It depends on whether or not you are religious. If religious, a person can argue their way out of your paradox, Torkoal, by saying that "God" exists in another plane of reality, ie. "God" exists outside of the realm of space and time, in which we live.


They will say that "God" also exists within the realm of space and time in which we live. "He" lives in both - we do not. So "God" fits into our realm as omnipresent, (everywhere), and omnipotent, (all powerful), but that does not imply infinity. The universe is not infinite, so omnipresence does not mean infinite. "God" is not deemed capable of doing the logically impossible, like making a stone too heavy for "him "to lift - that contradicts the definition of "God". So omnipotence does not mean infinite.


The get out of jail free card is that "God" also exists elsewhere - in "his majestic realm", so "he" can be infinite via that avenue. Of course the theists apologetics are a load of hooey. On the other hand, who do you want to convince with your disproof of "God", Torkoal, atheists or theists? I'm already on your side.

I wasn't trying to disprove something among us (because we're already all atheist/agnostic), it was just something I thought up I wanted to share with you all.

That being said, christians can always squeeze out of tight spots by making god "untouchable", saying whatever he does can't be explained or understood by human minds. Unless you're toying with them, that defense mechanism makes arguing with close-minded theists virtually useless.

Actually the way they get out of this is very simple: by defining "infinite power" as "the maximum amount of power one can possibly have without the concept becoming self-contradictory". In other words: the largest logically possible power. Repeat for the rest of his attributes.

That immediately stops your argument (and many others) dead in its tracks.


And in my opinon, this is not an unreasonable way to go about things.

that "untouchable might be true according to thiests but I mean these people are either stuipid or scared easily I mean my own philosophy of the word god is a man made creation brought forth to aid man in his times of need like with the prehistoric man(and not by the god you know but rather some other deity like fire or the moon...),and it kept evolving throughout the ages passing through the popular judism(moses),christianity(jesus)and ofcoarse the one islam(mohammed) and all of them creating their own version of a holy power which is infinite and beyond questioning because they all know that if people started to question their stories they may find faults which indicate their false nature.So all I can say is that "GOD"is just a reference to a higher power we were made to believe existed once we were young(since our minds could be easily manipulated).this system of belief whatever it is called either because of fear(Woooo your going to hell If you dont go to church or mosque or whatever)or because they believe a world without religion will fall into chaos and anarchy...

The problem for theists regarding god being infinite is that in being infinite, or omnipresent, that would leave no room anything labeled non-god to exist.  Thus if god exist then nothing else exists. 


If true, then Hindu mysticism would be right - all is Brahman and all else is illusionary - i.e., just thoughts in the mind of god or "stuff" created out of himself or itself.  This eliminates everything else as of any consequence.  E.g., all is god, so whence heaven and hell?  God can't send himself or itself to heaven, or to hell, it would seem, thus not only problem solved, but ALL problems solved, forever and a day.  So theists, if they believe god is omnipresent, then all is god, so they should stop taking anything seriously and STFU.

Unfortunately, your argument is unusable. It makes the statement that "infinitesimally small is exactly equal to zero," which is functionally refuted by calculus and (to my knowledge) has been conclusively disproven in mathematics. Basically, you did the equivalent of dividing by zero-- you can't actually do that, so you can't use it to make a conclusion. 

Besides that, it still doesn't prevent simultaneity, the argument that we are sub-parts of a god which is synonymous with existence, a la Spinoza. That makes your conclusion a false dichotomy since the result could also be "we do exist, and so does he as us."


I don't want to sound harsh, but it's better to root out logical fallacies early since they rot the foundation of any ideas and discussion you try to build on top of them.

I never took calculus in school so for that reason a few months back I did the Great Courses on Calculus from the Teaching Company.

I'm still not sure, exactly, what a "function" is supposed to be, but I did pick up an appreciation for integral vs. differential and a few things like that.

I do remember that there is a proof that 0.9999 to the infinite = 1. This seems rather counter-intuitive but nevertheless apparently true. Thus this is an example of "infinitesimally small (being) exactly equal to zero."

I'm not sure what this has to do with omni-whatever or pantheism or monism.  Alan Watts explained all about such to my satisfaction without reference to calculus so I guess I'll just stick with him.

The case of 0.999... = 1 is not actually an example of infinitesimals, it's really more of a notation trick. The proof for it is along the lines of "0.111... = 1/9, etc etc, so 0.999... = 9/9 = 1". This not the same as saying "1 - dx = 1" (which is false). 


My point about Spinoza was that you relied on elimination to justify your conclusion, essentially "There's only these options, and the others are wrong, so my option must be correct." It's a pretty common mistake, but you can't forget that they could all be wrong. I pointed that out by mentioning an option you missed (and didn't eliminate).

Well, even though I didn't use the word monism originally my point was that, logically speaking, ontological monism is correct - or something else is - that something else being some sort of dualism.

There are many types of monism to be considered, apparently, but my intuition is that if one has ice cream then one has ice cream - the particular flavor being trivial.

Logically I intuit monism as correct - analogous to my conviction that 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10 math. All the arguments to the contrary that I have heard to date - in both cases - seem logically flawed to me.

Ipso facto I am an atheist also - though there may be atheists who are dualists.

Gee - unless they can come up with a convincing argument for dualism then I don't care. IOW, it takes a smidgen of a something to make me care.

Make me care.

Sorry, it looks like I made a mistake when replying to you - both my original and follow-up reply were directed at Torkoal, the OP, not to your reply (I mixed up the names).


But yes, I do agree with your view that an infinite god would necessarily seem to overlap with physical existence (the additional option I was suggesting to Torkoal). However, finite gods face no such constraint as most historical pantheistic religions demonstrate. Modern Christianity tends to follow the pantheistic model much more closely than they acknowledge, and many sects really tend to treat their prophets/etc. as minor deities (Mary in Catholicism is a strong example), so I would say that they are generally being disingenuous when they espouse the 'infinite god' approach while holding to the pantheistic separation of the heavens from earth. 

Well, except I wouldn't bother considering a non-infinite god a god at all. Unless you define a god as some kind of superhero--really, really powerful compared to regular folks, but still just some kind of being that puts its pants on one leg at a time.

I think we might consider all types of so-called supernatural ideas or religious beliefs just to be various forms of animism - and one either finds animism plausible or one does not.

Michael Shermer talks about "Agency" - the idea of some sort of invisible immaterial conscious being or beings or free-floating mind or minds that are always manipulating reality behind the scenes, i.e.,  they care about humans and may be either benevolent or malevolent toward us. This goes along with Cartesian Dualism usually - that we humans are spirits too, just temporarily housed in fleshy bodies.

I and many others find all that implausible, to say the least. Many others continue to be enraptured by this old time philosophy/religion.

So there you go -and here we are - and what can we do?



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service