The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Matthew Ellard]

IT IS A PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT NOT A RELIGION.

God is infinity / Infinity is god

You really are a very confused person.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

As with all philosophies, this one too started by one person, me.

Philosophical Infinitism comes from the philosophers Paul Moser and John Post

Have you ever actually read a book on philosophy?

 

[tazanastazio]

You really are a very confused person.

Not confused at all, whatsoever. I am absolutely certain about the Infinite!
The idea of "god" conceived by humanity could be a product of imagination; a superior being or organization of beings of a variety of range of influence within the Universe; or a social implementation to organize society a certain way and control people. But the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, beginningless and everlasting God; could be nothing but the Infinite.


Infinitism:

God is the Infinite and the Infinite is God.
The Infinite is the only certainty; everything else is a matter of perception and perspective.
There always will be many things yet to learn about, many things we will never know about, and many things we will never have proof, or evidence for; non of which means that those things do not exist or are not the case.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Not confused at all, whatsoever. I am absolutely certain about the Infinite!

Nope. You are permanently confused or simply insane. You claim "God is infinity" and "infinity is God" and simultaneously claim you aren't talking about religion.

The idea of "god" conceived by humanity could be a .....

....Zoroastrian concept. Prior to Zoroastrianism all religions were polytheistic. (many gods existing simultaneously).

You really should read some basic books about the history of religion.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

But the idea of an omnipotent, ...... God; could be nothing but the Infinite.

An omnipotent God was destroyed in medieval philosophy. Didn't you know?

Can an omnipotent God create a stone so large he cannot lift it? Yes or No?

There is no such thing as an omnipotent god. Your God is not "infinite".

Read some basic philosophy books before posting again.

 

[tazanastazio]

Nope. You are permanently confused or simply insane. You claim "God is infinity the Infinite" and "infinity the Infinite is God" and simultaneously claim you aren't talking about religion.

....Zoroastrian concept. Prior to Zoroastrianism all religions were polytheistic. (many gods existing simultaneously).

You really should read some basic books about the history of religion.

Poly/Πολυ=Many - theism/θεϊσμός=about God; God = Theos/Θεός
Like science, religion also springs from philosophy.
Neither confused nor insane, simply a contemplator.

An omnipotent God was destroyed in medieval philosophy. Didn't you know?

Can an omnipotent God create a stone so large he cannot lift it? Yes or No?

How naive! Or Medievally Let's rephrase it:
CAN THE INFINITE TURN INTO AN INFINITE STONE AND LIFT ITSELF? WHERE?

... and then you say I am 200 years behind, compared to medieval philosophical arguments, try 1000 years ahead! Give or take a few centuries

...and yes I took two philosophy classes one in a University, the other in a college, and I almost taught them both!

 

[Steve]

The problem, tazanastazio, is that one can substitute literally any adjective in the dictionary where you write "Infinite" and the meaning and value of what you're writing doesn't change at all.

"The universe is Blue. It's a Blue that's so utterly Blue that we cannot even comprehend its Blueness. Even I don't understand actual Blueness, even though I'm the only one who has visualized the Blueness that must exist. Despite that lack of understanding, I'm certain that everything you think you know about the universe is wrong, because you haven't arrived at Blue. And by the way, God, because only God can be or create such perfect and profound Blue."

"Infinite" or "Blue" or for that matter "Noisy" or "Holy" or "Squamous." Either way, it doesn't clarify anything. It doesn't explain anything. It doesn't mean anything.

Fan of the Yellow Submarine movie?

 

[Craig4]

Nope, he didn't. You and others may think he did though, it's your opinion.

Grown-ups are talking.

 

[tazanastazio]

Grown-ups are talking.

Depending on your guys' age, behavior and perception; that'd make me middle-aged, or a genarian.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

An omnipotent God was destroyed in medieval philosophy. Didn't you know? Can an omnipotent God create a stone so large he cannot lift it? Yes or No?

... and then you say I am 200 years behind, compared to medieval philosophical arguments

That is exactly what I am saying.

You claim "God" is omnipotent and "God" is infinity as infinity contains everything. But 1000 years ago philosophers deduced the omnipotence paradox. Your "god" can't create a stone so large he can't pick it up. That logically means "god" cannot be omnipotent and have infinite abilities.

That totally destroys your entire "God is infinity" religion in one go.


What is amazing is that you claim to be a religious philosopher and yet you never heard of this basic premise of religious philosophy.

Omnipotence paradox
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

//////////////////////////////////////////////

...and yes I took two philosophy classes one in a University, the other in a college, and I almost taught them both!

No you didn't. You didn't know the omnipotence paradox and you can't spell basic words or write complete sentences.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

But the idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent, beginningless and everlasting God; could be nothing but the Infinite.

Tsk tsk tsk ......

...and yes I took two philosophy classes one in (at) a University, the other in (at) a college, and I almost taught them both!

How embarrassing for you. Philosophy 101 introductory courses specifically discuss the Omnipotence paradox. You just admitted you never heard of it.

"The general consensus among philosophers and theologians is that Omnipotence generates paradoxes and it is an incoherent way to define God's power. The particular problem that renders Omnipotence nonsensical has come to be known as The Stone Paradox.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccormickphilosophy/home/what-is-omnipotence

You can now throw out your "God is infinity" religion, as fully debunked from every aspect.

Did you study hamburger flipping "philosophy" at McDonalds Fast Food training University?

 

[tazanastazio]

Tsk tsk tsk ......
How embarrassing for you. Philosophy 101 introductory courses specifically discuss the Omnipotence paradox. You just admitted you never heard of it.

"The general consensus among philosophers and theologians is that Omnipotence generates paradoxes and it is an incoherent way to define God's power. The particular problem that renders Omnipotence nonsensical has come to be known as The Stone Paradox.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccormickphilosophy/home/what-is-omnipotence

You can now throw out your "God is infinity" religion, as fully debunked from every aspect.

Did you study hamburger flipping "philosophy" at McDonalds Fast Food training University?

I am not going to even raise this so called "paradox", to the level of it worthy to give me bragging rights! What a ridiculously naive notion! To brag about something being destroyed and debunked as a theory or an argument, it has to even be worthy the effort! Do you mean to tell me that nobody has come up with an answer, to this silly argument to put it mildly, ever since it honored the annals of history with its emergence! It took me barely 3 seconds to see the stupidity of that argument!

How naive! Or Medievally! Let's rephrase it:

CAN THE INFINITE TURN ITSELF INTO AN INFINITE STONE AND LIFT ITSELF? LIFT ITSELF WHERE?




Let it be known then, that Taz Anastazio's Infinitism destroyed the serious and Gordian Knot-like argument against God's omnipotence of the so called "Stone Paradox"; in barely 5 seconds, if that, after it was presented to him for the first time; on the day of the Lord Nov. 19, 2019.


Yes it is true, I have never heard of this stupid statement before in my life! Perhaps both of my philosophy professors recognized this so called "paradox" for what it is, total and utter stupidity.

"The general consensus among philosophers and theologians is that Omnipotence generates paradoxes and it is an incoherent way to define God's power. The particular problem that renders Omnipotence nonsensical has come to be known as The Stone Paradox.
https://sites.google.com/site/mccorm...is-omnipotence

Ha, ha, ha you mean to tell me they STILL scratch their heads over this? This is mindboggling to me. Infinitism is not really a complicated concept. Take out all the extensive analysis on my part, you still have: God is omnipotent and omnipresent, therefore everywhere; therefore God's power and presence extends to infinity -> to make a stone that large it has to be as large as His presence, since it cannot be larger than infinity; and therefore God Himself would have to become the stone with no place to lift Himself, since He would occupy every place to infinity!

Do you have any more "paradoxes" of the caliber and nature of the aforementioned? Keep them coming Chamaquito, I'm having a field day!

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Philosophy : The Omnipotence Paradox

I am not going to even raise this so called "paradox",

How could you? You never studied philosophy and it is beyond your skill level.

To brag about something being destroyed and denunked (sic) (The word is "debunked") as a theory

You simply didn't know that your "god" can't be omnipotent. You "god" isn't infinite. Your religion is dead in the water.

Do you mean to tell me that nobody has come up with an answer, to this silly argument

Sooooo,,,,you admit you never studied philosophy and have to ask me why this can't be debunked. You are funny.

I have never heard of this stupid statement before in my life!

Are you saying it doesn't come up much when you are flipping hamburgers?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

What kind of experiment do you propose would possibly prove the Infinite? When as I have already stated, if the Infinite Itself displayed Itself to us, we still would not be able to comprehend it, our minds would not be able to contain the Infinite knowledge/knowledge of what the Infinite is. We would die. Now do you see why I call your arguments childish chamaquito?

Strange then, that you appear quite able to comprehend "The Infinite", and- I assume- you are not currently dead.

I've only conceived the idea of the Infinite, I did not claim to have visualized the Infinite in its actuality.

Then how do you know we would die if we saw it?

Are you also admitting that you have no knowledge of what 'the Infinite' is?

You appear to have spent the last 10 years trying to understand something you cannot prove exists, in which no-one except you believes, and which, if you ever were able to experience it directly, would kill you. Do you consider this to be a productive use of your time?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Just because we don't have proof or evidence about something, it doesn't mean it didn't happen or it does not exist. Skeptics are not deniers, they in the contrary allow more room for doubt, and while leaning pro or against, they still do not dismiss for certain anything till they have undisputed proof/evidence in favor or against. Even the most incredulous of skeptics would not say that the Infinite does not exist, especially when ALL SCIENTIFIC PROOF POINTS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT COULD NOT BE OTHERWISE, and we have no proof of the existence of an absolute origin; in the contrary we logically see the illogic of such a ridiculous notion.

For the fourth time of asking: what evidence do you have for the existence of this 'Infinite'? By your own argument, evidence is what you need to convince skeptics. Just post some. Simple.

 

[Craig4]

Depending on your guys' age, behavior and perception; that'd make me middle-aged, or a genarian.

I'm sure you can find a kid's table to sit at somewhere.

 

[8enotto]

So if I understand the sheer void where evidence should be is the proof of this infinite whatever.

Restated, our ignorance of its presence is proof it is.

Blind faith. Now that is a sure thing to bet all on.

And again, invoking any god makes this a crackpot religion.

 

[tazanastazio]

For the fourth time of asking: what evidence do you have for the existence of this 'Infinite'? By your own argument, evidence is what you need to convince skeptics. Just post some. Simple.

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

 

[Pixel42]

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

The highlighted phrases are contradictory.

If you're going to allow a single exception to "Nothing would exist without an origin" then why not just make the universe (or possibly the multiverse) the exception? Why introduce an extra layer, let alone one as nebulous and undefined as "the Infinite"?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

For the fourth time of asking: what evidence do you have for the existence of this 'Infinite'? By your own argument, evidence is what you need to convince skeptics. Just post some. Simple.

It is a simple concept actually:

Nothing would exist without an origin; which leads to the concept of an absolute origin. Yet an absolute origin itself had to have an origin too. The origin of an absolute origin is the Infinite, which doesn't have an origin.

This is an admission, then, that you actually have no evidence and are forced to rely on faulty reasoning instead.
At least we know now.