Timeline for Could there ever be evidence for an infinite being?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 12, 2018 at 8:04 | comment | added | Bryson S. | @christo183 I suspected that this might might follow from the definitions we are working with, thanks for the input. | |
| Oct 16, 2018 at 11:15 | comment | added | christo183 | If an "infinite being" wanted you to believe - you couldn't stop believing even in the face of insurmountable contrary evidence. | |
| Jul 25, 2014 at 18:36 | vote | accept | Bryson S. | ||
| Jul 25, 2014 at 6:49 | answer | added | Guill | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 18:40 | answer | added | Dave B | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 14:35 | answer | added | Swami Vishwananda | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 20, 2014 at 11:32 | answer | added | Asphir Dom | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 15:50 | comment | added | ben rudgers | 'Any being' includes the posited god. Thus the posited god is limited because like us there is something it cannot conceive. Our choices are inductive reasoning, claiming a priori knowledge, or assuming the premise (and attempting to obfuscate our assumption by abusing language). Not a big deal philosophically. A bigger deal when evangelizing for theology. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 15:33 | comment | added | Bryson S. | @benrudgers I suspect that Anselm's notion was likely deeper than simply what we can conceive, and is generalizable to what any being could in principle conceive. I stumbled with this question myself when I first heard of the concept, but I now think "an unsurpassably great being" may be a closer to what was being aimed for. So do you agree that there is nothing we can point to in the world and say "Look at that, see??? Ah, now we know that God exists and is infinite based on this observation."? | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 14:09 | answer | added | celtschk | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 4:20 | comment | added | ben rudgers | The move from something of 'which nothing greater can be conceived' to omnipotence etc. is of dubious validity. From a contemporary perspective it extrapolates from what might be a defect in an individual's imagination to a rather substantial claim about the external world. On the other hand, from a scholastic perspective it appears to posit a god with a contingent property, namely being contingent on what we can imagine. Even 500 years ago, good form suggested claiming a priori knowledge of God and calling it a day. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 2:59 | answer | added | labreuer | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 2:45 | answer | added | infatuated | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 2:21 | comment | added | Alfred Centauri | I won't expound but I will recommend that you look up the novel "Contact" by the late Carl Sagan and the back story behind the 'wormholes' featured in it (look up "Kip Thorne" too). As I understand it, an arbitrarily advanced civilization is limited only by the impossible which seems on par with the idea of a being "who's abilities have no non-logical limitations". | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 2:08 | comment | added | Bryson S. | @AlfredCentauri Care to expound on the connotations/context of that phrase? | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 2:06 | comment | added | Alfred Centauri | FWIW, after reading your question, I began thinking about the phrase arbitrarily advanced civilization as is sometimes used by physicists. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 1:53 | comment | added | virmaior | The objection you're raising is also Hume's objection. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 1:09 | comment | added | user4894 | Then we are in agreement. I think all attempts to subject God to logical analysis are doomed to failure. Talk of infinite beings is meaningless. But, a lot of smart people have written a lot about infinite beings. So maybe I'm wrong. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 1:09 | history | edited | Bryson S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Jul 19, 2014 at 1:02 | history | edited | Bryson S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 19, 2014 at 1:00 | comment | added | Bryson S. | By "virtuous" I mean exemplifying moral virtues to an incredible degree. Can we tell the difference between being incredibly virtuous and infinitely virtuous? Based on my limited understanding, I don't think we can. I am therefore surprised that anyone defends the claim that an infinite being exists given that we would not know infinity if it were staring us in the face. | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 0:57 | comment | added | Bryson S. | @user4894 Cards on the table, I completely agree with you that the concept of an unsurpassably great being is nonsense. My ontological objections to theism are diverse and numerous. However, I was willing to elide them on the basis that if I only knew logic better perhaps it would make sense to me. However, this abiding problem of what I will call "Divine Demonstration" has prevented me from accepting it. I agree that retro-causality may be a poor example as it is more contentious than instructive. But what about moral perfection? Could we tell the difference between a virtuous being and God? | |
| Jul 19, 2014 at 0:08 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/490286997710577664 | ||
| Jul 19, 2014 at 0:04 | comment | added | user4894 | My training was in math so when people say "infinity" I expect a clear definition that I can work with. If you want to posit an infinite being, I need to know what properties it has so I can think about it. Perhaps I lack the imagination for theology. But isn't changing the past violating a logical limit? Not a non-logical limit. So maybe we should figure out if being able to change the past is a logical or non-logical limit. Also, Anselm is pretty old, yet you're asking a question relative to the present. Anselm's definition is just word play, to me. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 23:40 | history | edited | Bryson S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 23:32 | comment | added | Bryson S. | @user4894 I have emended the question to reflect our discussion up to this point. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 23:32 | history | edited | Bryson S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 97 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 23:28 | comment | added | Bryson S. | @user4894 I am not aiming to stir discontent so I will consider the point taken. Let's take one step back. Can you discern the line between a being that is "very powerful" and one that is "all-powerful"? If you can descry that distinction, then we are on the right path. An infinite being is a being whose abilities have no non-logical limits. (There are other ways to define infinite, but this should suffice for our purposes) | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 23:23 | comment | added | user4894 | If you refuse to define what you mean, your question is meaningless. Where did this "change the past" rule come from? What is limitless? You are just making up words and imagining they have meaning to others. That's why in philosophy it is essential to define your terms. Else we aren't talking about anything. Oooh X isn't infinite because X can't cheat at solitaire. That's the kind of nonsense you fall into when you refuse to make a definition of your terms. What is "essentially perfect?" Is there an inessentially perfect? You're just making up buzzwords without meaning. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 23:14 | history | edited | Bryson S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 22:53 | comment | added | Bryson S. | @user4894 For one example, I cannot change the past, ergo I am not an infinite being. There is no need to persist in a Wittgensteinian obsession with language. For our purposes infinite equals unbounded, limitless, or essentially perfect. | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 22:50 | comment | added | user4894 | Did you clearly define "infinite being?" What makes you think you're not already one yourself? A million years from now the atoms in your body will be repurposed to some other use. You never die, you only become a different aspect of the universe. You are as infinite as the universe is. Since it's clear that you never die, but just become a different part of the universe, what makes you think you're not already an infinite being? Or a part of one? | |
| Jul 18, 2014 at 22:00 | history | edited | Bryson S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 21:52 | history | edited | Bryson S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jul 18, 2014 at 21:34 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 18, 2014 at 22:20 | |||||
| Jul 18, 2014 at 21:29 | history | asked | Bryson S. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |