Argument From Infinity

The argument from infinity is an argument for a panend(th)eistic god. Simply put, it states that if god is totally infinite, then it must include the manifest universe. If it didn't then god would not be truly infinite.

What are your thoughts on the argument from infinity?

The only problem I have with it, and its not really a problem as much as it is a point to keep in mind, is the limitation we have on symbolic expression. For example, if Deity is totally infinite, does that exclude Deity from being finite? Any argument might be correct, or at least partially correct, but it can never be proven because Deity in its transcendent nature must transcend even symbolic argument. The teleogical argument might be correct, but it can't be proven.

-TC

No, I don't think that proves the universe is within God because there could still be an infinite amount of things outside the universe and God being outside the universe doesn't make him less infinite. What is infinity minus one(universe)? Also, is God being infinite just an assumption or is there a logical reason why he can/must be so? Does infinite really exist or is it just a concept? Can God count to infinity starting from one, counting at an infinite speed, using an infinite amount of time if need be, and be able to say I'm done? If God can't count to infinity then doesn't that prove he is not infinite and if even God is not infinite doesn't that prove infinity doesn't exist?

Aaron wrote:

The argument from infinity is an argument for a panend(th)eistic god. Simply put, it states that if god is totally infinite, then it must include the manifest universe. If it didn't then god would not be truly infinite.

What are your thoughts on the argument from infinity?

This is a tough one and my belief in God being simultaneously one and three is a great help here.

Creation by definition must be imperfection since only God as one outside of time and space is perfect. God does not exist: God "is." Existence is a function of creation in time and space.

Creation begins with one dividing into the three elemental forces of Yin (feminine passive) and Yang, male active) and neutral (reconciling) All of the initial creation is an involutionary movement into creation where vibration becomes slower and matter becomes more dense as the forces continually divide and reblend at different levels of quality that correspond with each cosmological level of creation.

When I first read this extraordinary observation from Simone Weil the hair in the back of my neck stood up since I got a glimpse of what is meant by the infinitely large and small being the same. She wrote:

Quote :

Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."

"Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all."

Matter at the level of God is so fine and the vibration of spirit so rapid it is far beyond our comprehension. Yet the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I think I experienced what the breath of Brahama (the great cycle) means where the universe expands to the infinitely large and returns to the infinitely small.

Nick_A wrote:

Aaron wrote:

The argument from infinity is an argument for a panend(th)eistic god. Simply put, it states that if god is totally infinite, then it must include the manifest universe. If it didn't then god would not be truly infinite.

What are your thoughts on the argument from infinity?

This is a tough one and my belief in God being simultaneously one and three is a great help here.

Creation by definition must be imperfection since only God as one outside of time and space is perfect. God does not exist: God "is." Existence is a function of creation in time and space.

In my god model, god is neither perfect nor imperfect and yet both at the same time. This may sound like a paradox but this is because god is undefinable in it's unmanifest non-dual form.

I have been comfortable with the concept that everything that exists is composed of and a part of God - that God is, for lack of a better term, the energy that manifests itself in the matter of the universe. But, I've been involved in a debate on another forum that has me questioning the logic of that premise. We create things, but we are not a part of what we create! The creator is always (physically) outside of the creation.

I think the problem may arise from thinking of everything in physical terms, though. God cannot be limited by our meager understanding of the physical.

Paul Anthony wrote:

I have been comfortable with the concept that everything that exists is composed of and a part of God - that God is, for lack of a better term, the energy that manifests itself in the matter of the universe. But, I've been involved in a debate on another forum that has me questioning the logic of that premise. We create things, but we are not a part of what we create! The creator is always (physically) outside of the creation.

I think the problem may arise from thinking of everything in physical terms, though. God cannot be limited by our meager understanding of the physical.

Imagine a water soaked log resting in a pond. The water is God and the log is matter. The water is both inside and outside the log.

Nick_A wrote:

Imagine a water soaked log resting in a pond. The water is God and the log is matter. The water is both inside and outside the log.

Hmm...Sorry, not good enough. The water didn't create the log, so the relationship between the two doesn't quite fit the problem.

Quote :

I have been comfortable with the concept that everything that exists is composed of and a part of God - that God is, for lack of a better term, the energy that manifests itself in the matter of the universe. But, I've been involved in a debate on another forum that has me questioning the logic of that premise. We create things, but we are not a part of what we create! The creator is always (physically) outside of the creation.

I think the problem may arise from thinking of everything in physical terms, though. God cannot be limited by our meager understanding of the physical.

Not to cop out or anything but as long as we have free will - which we do - then it doesn't matter whether we are technically part of god or whether god created this and is separate from. I don't think this subtle distinction would actually have much implication.
What I was always nervous about with the panendeist model or any model in which the universe is (or is a part of) God, is that evil is then God. Hitler's choices were apart of God, as are all evil choices that are made.
However, if our will is free then I guess it doesn't matter.
If every last physical matter or energy in this universe is part of God, that's fine. And even when that inanimate matter and energy combines to form animate life , then that is still fine. But when that animate matter develops consciousness and fee will, there is a bubble I think that separates itself from God. If that is not the case, as I said, then evil decisions that are made by pepole are also apart of God. Maybe consciousness and free will is to God in the non-physical world what black holes are to the physical world.

But again being deists, we accept that an argument can be made that there is just the physical world.

I guess that's about all clear as my coffee this morning.

Paul Anthony wrote:

I have been comfortable with the concept that everything that exists is composed of and a part of God - that God is, for lack of a better term, the energy that manifests itself in the matter of the universe. But, I've been involved in a debate on another forum that has me questioning the logic of that premise. We create things, but we are not a part of what we create! The creator is always (physically) outside of the creation.

I think the problem may arise from thinking of everything in physical terms, though. God cannot be limited by our meager understanding of the physical.

I personally don't see god as the creator of the universe, at least not in the classical sense. I see the universe as more of manifestation, epiphenomena, or emanation of the unmanifest "One".

But even in the classical sense, if the universe isn't an aspect of god, then what is it? Where did all the energy/information come from? "Creatio ex nihilo" (creation out of nothing)? "Creatio ex materia" (creation out of eternally pre-existing matter)?

IMO, "creatio ex deo" (creation out of the being of god), seems to make the most sense.

The argument that "we create things, but we are not a part of what we create!" is invalid on two levels. First we don't really "create" anything in the material sense of the word. We actually just reorganize and move things around. But even in the more abstract and broad sense of the word in which we create new "forms" or "artifacts", from a social autopoietic perspective, every artifact and creation reflects and is like an extension of the mind of the creator.

This is why art and creativity in general is so important IMO. Because it offers us an ongoing legacy of the person behind the creation. When we create something we are essentially sharing a part of our subjective self with the rest of the world. That's why even if on an ontological level god is separate from material creation, there is still a subjective aspect of god that's embedded in the universe.

Helium wrote:

Quote :

I have been comfortable with the concept that everything that exists is composed of and a part of God - that God is, for lack of a better term, the energy that manifests itself in the matter of the universe. But, I've been involved in a debate on another forum that has me questioning the logic of that premise. We create things, but we are not a part of what we create! The creator is always (physically) outside of the creation.

I think the problem may arise from thinking of everything in physical terms, though. God cannot be limited by our meager understanding of the physical.

Not to cop out or anything but as long as we have free will - which we do - then it doesn't matter whether we are technically part of god or whether god created this and is separate from. I don't think this subtle distinction would actually have much implication.
What I was always nervous about with the panendeist model or any model in which the universe is (or is a part of) God, is that evil is then God. Hitler's choices were apart of God, as are all evil choices that are made.

That's the nature of dualism or non-dualism (monism with poles). Without evil, good wouldn't exist. Without ugly, beauty wouldn't exist. Without ignorance, knowledge wouldn't exist. Without destruction, creation wouldn't exist. Without death, life wouldn't exist. Without winter, summer wouldn't exist... etc. Without poles existence would be featureless and dull.

IMHO, evil is just as divine as good. It gives shape and form to "the good". Without these poles the unmanifest would never become manifested. Choice would become impossible and "free will" wouldn't exist.

Quote :

IMHO, evil is just as divine as good.

I agree with everything you say until that last line. Evil must exist for good to exist. Well, actually it's more along the lines of free will. You couldn't have free will and no evil.

So certainly the divine has allowed evil,as he would have to if the divine is injecting free will into a system.
But I still don't feel comfortable saying the evil is devine.
There was nothing divine about Hitler and the Holocaust, just to list one of evil's shining light of the 20th century.

If god created free will (and that's highly debatable) then god also created evil. Thus, evil - like good - is of divine origin.

Does God define evil, or does Man?

Darkness is merely the absence of light, so evil could be seen as the absence of good, but then we are left to define "good". If you like beer, but don't have any, is the absence of beer "evil"?

Or, if you like chocolate, but hate asparagus, does that make chocolate "good" and asparagus "bad"?

Paul Anthony wrote:

Does God define evil, or does Man?

Darkness is merely the absence of light, so evil could be seen as the absence of good, but then we are left to define "good". If you like beer, but don't have any, is the absence of beer "evil"?

Or, if you like chocolate, but hate asparagus, does that make chocolate "good" and asparagus "bad"?

I would say that evil is purely subjective. The objective universe as I understand it has two flows: evolution and involution. Everything that happens is a natural result of the interactions of universal laws. Evil has to be defined in relation to an aim defined as good. Objective good is just the process of creation itself initiating with conscious intent. "Let there be light."

That is why I posted the "choice" thread. There is nothing objectively evil about ships sunk at sea but it is subjectively evil for those killed by it striving to survive.

Paul Anthony wrote:

I have been comfortable with the concept that everything that exists is composed of and a part of God - that God is, for lack of a better term, the energy that manifests itself in the matter of the universe. But, I've been involved in a debate on another forum that has me questioning the logic of that premise. We create things, but we are not a part of what we create! The creator is always (physically) outside of the creation.

I think the problem may arise from thinking of everything in physical terms, though. God cannot be limited by our meager understanding of the physical.

But isn't your thoughts a part of you? You don't have to physically create something to be a creator. I just now created a sculpture in my mind. If I want to share my sculpture with someone I can either make a copy of it out of something material and show it to other people or I can create people in my mind to see the original. If no one else but me exists then my only option is to make people in my mind. Thank God that there is other people because I don't have the brain power to give my people self awareness but God does have this power!

I think it is like this with God. God has no need to make a physical copy of the universe to show it to others. The only reason he would need to make a copy is if he exists in a world with other gods and wants to share his "art" with them. He would need to create the universe out of materials from this god world to show the other gods. If you believe that outside of creation the only thing that exists is one god then he must create things out of himself because he is all that exists. There is no outside of God and everything that exists exists within. So, Why would God need to create the universe outside of himself and why try to figure out what materials he used? What need would there be for him to make a copy? The only observers of God's creation is God and his creations. There is no other gods observing us. So, there is no reason to physically manifest us outside himself. The universe is not outside of God. God is outside of and within the universe. The universe is not a physically manifested copy of God's original idea. The universe is the original idea and is therefore a part of God!

So, all of what we call "existence" is a thought experiment within the mind of God....

I like it!

Uriah wrote

Quote :

If god created free will (and that's highly debatable) then god also created evil. Thus, evil - like good - is of divine origin.

Okay lets take a few steps back here.

Evil exists.

Free will exists.

God exists.

Does this mean that God created evil.

No I don't think so.

I kinda know what you and Aaron mean.

But it's like a parent and his kid. The parents hopefully love their kid. But the parent doesn't have to love everything his kid does.

In the same way, God doesn't have to love the way we use our free will.

As Aaron poiinted out, God is probably above free will. He is THE perfect choice. Don't ask me how he can manifest in this way. But evil is limited to those with free will.

For instance natural disasters aren't evil, not that that's much consolation if you die in one. But there is no intent. Evil emanates from free will.

What we can be sure of, is that with free will, there is the freedom to act in an evil way. So yeah you could say a non intervening God allows free will, including the freedom to will evil thoughts.

But it doesn't logically follow that evil intent is therefore divine.

Think of a parent and a kid. To say the parent loves everything about the kid, including some evil things he may have done just doesn't follow.

Helium, do you believe God is omniscient? If so, God knows evil.

If everything emanates from God, then God must possess the capacity for evil, or else evil could not exist.

There's just no way to get around it. If everything is from God, evil is, too.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

~ Epicurus

Paul Anthony wrote:

So, all of what we call "existence" is a thought experiment within the mind of God....

I like it!

Exactly!

I believe that God is an all knowing creator god and this is the best explanation I've been able to come up with to explain how ,"God did it!".

Besides comparing God to an artist or sculptor another way of looking at it is to compare him to a writer. Why do writers write down their thoughts? They write them down to share their ideas with others. If a writer was alone in the world then the writer would have no reason to write down his thoughts because there would be no one to read them. It's the same with God. If you don't believe in polytheism then there is no reason to believe that God created the world outside of himself because he is the only god that exists. So, his ideas(creation) only exist within his mind and there is no outside copy.

Where is this forum with this debate? Has my explanation helped?

I agree that evil comes from God but not directly. God had to create the options to do good or evil to give us freewill. So, he indirectly created evil by directly creating the options. We directly create evil when we make an evil choice. I believe God wants us to make good choices because good choices are rewarded with good consequences. So, God isn't evil for creating the option to choose evil. God is good because he gave us freewill and wants us to make the right choices. God was good for giving Hitler freewill and wanting him to make the right choices. Hitler was evil for making the wrong choices.

Uriah wrote:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

~ Epicurus

“Is God not willing to prevent freewill, but able?
Then he is omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is benevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh freewill?
Is he both able and not willing?
Then why not call him God?”

~ Schizophretard

Schizophretard wrote:

“Is God not willing to prevent freewill, but able?
Then he is omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is benevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh freewill?
Is he both able and not willing?
Then why not call him God?”

~ Schizophretard

:facepalm:

"There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it."

~Buddha

Aaron wrote:

"There has to be evil so that good can prove its purity above it."

~Buddha

They say I don't belong
I must stay below alone.
Because of my beliefs I'm supposed to stay where evil is sown
But what is evil anyway?
is there reason to the rhyme?
Without evil there can be no good,
So it must be good to be evil sometimes.

~South Park's Satan(Up There lyrics)

Uriah,

What's up with the :facepalm:?