tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post5264336117469628109..comments2024-03-16T21:32:23.088-04:00Comments on A Sure Word: A Logical Argument Against God?RKBentleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-54895545460795603472011-07-31T23:18:04.940-04:002011-07-31T23:18:04.940-04:00Steven J,
You said, “One problem with Dhorpatan&#...Steven J,<br /><br />You said, “One problem with Dhorpatan's argument, it seems to me, is that he doesn't define "infinite" as it would apply to a Person. God is generally thought of as infinitely powerful, but not necessarily infinite in spatial extent.”<br /><br />There are several problems with Dhorpatan's argument so it's hard to narrow them down. He attempts to address the spiritual aspect of God but I think his argument is weak. The Bible does affirm that God is omnipresent, thus He is everywhere in the universe. He is also transcendent from the universe and so is simultaneously present “everywhere” outside the universe as well. <br /><br />You said, “Another is that he seems to assume that the universe is finite in spatial extent, so that it can't hold an infinite amount of something. Not all physicists agree, and at least this has not been proved. In any case, the universe would seem to "hold," in some sense, an infinity of real numbers (and even an infinity of prime numbers), whether or not it has room for an infinity of "stuff."”<br /><br />There is a technical meaning to the term “actual infinity” which would not include numbers. Numbers would be considered a “potential infinity.” If the universe is finite, it would be hard to imagine how an actual infinity could exist in it. Dhorpatan refuses to concede the seemingly obvious possibility that an infinite Being is not confined to the universe.<br /><br />You said, “Side note: as I noted above, a universe could be finitely old yet uncaused, if time extended only finitely into the past and the universe filled up all of it. On the other hand, a number line can hold an infinite number of integers, but you don't have to count up from negative infinity to get to, say, three. Most physicists say that our perception of time is somewhat illusory, with the implication that from a proper (if humanly unattainable) perspective, all moments exist simultaneously. So it's not obvious that spacetime could not extend infinitely into the past, whether it extends infinitely in space or not.”<br /><br />The Big Bang does not address the origin of matter. Many subscribers to the Big Bang prefer not to think about it. Ultimately speaking, matter is either eternal or finite. Neither option has a satisfactory scientific explanation – at least not one that is testable via observation or experimentation. To explain the creation without a Creator, one must invoke a lot of “what if” philosophy. It's the faith-like side of science.<br /><br />I'm sorry I greatly abbreviated your points. I've been especially pressed for time lately and Blogger only let's me post comments less than 4,300 characters or so anyway so I've whittled it down a little.<br /><br />Thanks for visiting.<br /><br />God bless!!<br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6030110973061875792.post-24440646157182570102011-07-27T03:16:19.285-04:002011-07-27T03:16:19.285-04:00One problem with Dhorpatan's argument, it seem...One problem with Dhorpatan's argument, it seems to me, is that he doesn't define "infinite" as it would apply to a Person. God is generally thought of as infinitely powerful, but not necessarily infinite in spatial extent, for example, since a spirit doesn't have a physical location or extent (this is why "God is Spirit" is an answer to the Samaritan woman's question of whether God lives in the Jerusalem temple or the one on Mt. Gerazim).<br /><br />Another is that he seems to assume that the universe is finite in spatial extent, so that it can't hold an infinite amount of something. Not all physicists agree, and at least this has not been proved. In any case, the universe would seem to "hold," in some sense, an infinity of real numbers (and even an infinity of prime numbers), whether or not it has room for an infinity of "stuff."<br /><br />One interpretation of the cosmology of Stephen Hawking is that there is only a finite amount of time: there is no "before the Big Bang." Thus, a finitely old universe might have nothing existing before it, and no time for anything to exist in. But can Dhorpatan demonstrate that this cannot be true for a First Cause: that as far as we can tell with mathematical models, an uncaused universe can exist, but an uncaused Personal First Cause cannot?<br /><br />He also seems to be equivocating on the definition of "universe;" at times limiting it to the space-time continuum that science can study, or at least speculate about with a few facts to go by (I refer to hypothetical regions of the universe too far away for light from them to ever reach us in an expanding universe): it seems obvious that God cannot exist outside of God, but it's much less obvious that God cannot exist outside of those regions of reality that we can study.<br /><br />At this point, I find myself agreeing with Darwin: humans are probably as ill-equipped to debate theology as a dog is to discuss Newtonian physics.<br /><br />Side note: as I noted above, a universe could be finitely old yet uncaused, if time extended only finitely into the past and the universe filled up all of it. On the other hand, a number line can hold an infinite number of integers, but you don't have to count up from negative infinity to get to, say, three. Most physicists say that our perception of time is somewhat illusory, with the implication that from a proper (if humanly unattainable) perspective, all moments exist simultaneously. So it's not obvious that spacetime could not extend infinitely into the past, whether it extends infinitely in space or not.Steven J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15638850493907393069noreply@blogger.com