An infinite God and his limitations

How could an infinite God take on limitations?  Could God still be infinite if he is limited?

Well before we tackle this question, let’s define the topic as according to some traditional apologetics.  “The infinite nature of God simply means that God exists outside of and is not limited by time or space. Infinite simply means ‘without limits.’  When we refer to God as infinite, we generally refer to Him with terms like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.”  As stated by the Christian apologetic website Got Questions.org.  Basically meaning God can do anything and everything, and nothing is impossible for God because he is infinite in nature.

To some this might seem like a nit-picky post, but I’m just pointing out the obvious.  That if we say God is infinite & without limits.  And then in the next sentence and same breath we say God can’t…(Fill in Blank Attribute.).   Then we are confessing with our own lips that this (semi-)infinite god does have a speed limit.

I can even remember people telling me that the God of the bible is Sovereign and can do anything; he chooses to put limits on himself.  Wait, a minute…Does that even make common sense? Why would a celestial  deity even need or want limitations.  Yet in some forms of Judeo-Christianity theologians such as Duns Scotus say that the ‘infinite’ nature of God invokes a sense of being without constraint, rather than a sense of being unlimited in quantity.  (Whatever that really means?!?!?!)

However there are several examples in scripture & reality where there appears to be limits and restrictions on God.

    • Biblical examples:  He couldn’t find Adam & Eve in the garden.  He cannot forgive certain sins.  He can’t perform miracles in the face of someones unbelief.
    • Reality examples:  He can’t make everyone believe he exist.  He choose to become human and take upon himself human limitations.  He can’t lie or sin.  Why would an infinite God need rest?  (As shown in the seven day creation in gen. 1)

So the common Christian apologetic response to all of this is: Who are we to question and try to understand an infinite God with our limited knowledge?  Now this is what leads us into another definition of infinite that gets thrown around; that an “Infinite God” is immeasurable, unsearchable, and unknowable.  That infinity is the term man uses to describe something that cannot be counted or measured and God is surely immeasurable.  (Attributes of God, as presented by the parent company.)  That we finite beings, could never fully comprehend nor understand the mind of an infinite being.  However this is not a real argument.   It is blatant reasoning from ignorance.

However there are so many problems not only with the concept of God, but the concept of an infinite and limitless God.

  1. Something that exist has limits to its actual existence
  2. God is infinite meaning Without Limits or Limitless
  3. Therefore if God exist, he can not be infinite.
  4. However in Conclusion: If God is infinite, he cannot actually exist, except for conceptually.

What I am really trying to get at in this post article, is that the idea that if something truly and undoubtedly exist, it has to have limitations.  It’s the limitation of existence that makes something measurable to verify it’s existence.  In the end the concept of being and existing, requires limitations.  And existence means limitations.  The only thing that does not have limitations are the concepts and dreams we make up.  

Related articles:

Advertisements

About M. Rodriguez

When I first received Christ salvation, I made it a priority to read the whole bible and I did. But it was the Bible that made me question my faith. For I found it flawed and lacking. Due to this I launched a personal inquiry/investigation into my faith, and ultimately realized that the Christian God of the Bible was indeed man-made. Now I Blog about those findings and life after Christ.
This entry was posted in atheist vs christian, attributes, attributes of God, biblical difficulties, character, christian fraud, Common Sense, confusion, contradiction, freethinker, god, infinite, logic, skeptic, skepticism, theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to An infinite God and his limitations

  1. Infinite God? I think I believe to infinite God, but we put in different way.
    God must be infinite in power and greatness, if not He can not be God. Another character need to be consider when understand the meaning of “infinite” is matter of “God’s choice”. If He want to happen, it will happen. If He don’t want to, it will not happen. Then it will start relate to problem of “predestined and free will” which more complicated.
    The simple analogy is “I have a multi billion dollar, which I can pick any car I want but which one is my matter of choice”.

    Omnipotent.
    In my theology, the way God speak are quite differently:
    “when He decrees a matter to be, He only says to it ‘ Be’ and it is.” (2:112)
    God can do everything, if He want to do it, it must happen. If He doesn’t want it to be, it will not be.

    When put the word “limited”, it sound impractical and wrong because the universe (for whom believe) are too extraordinary still can be created, a small problem such humanity can not be solve. It not logic, the must be a details that you missed or do not pick up during consideration of understanding God.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      actually our definitions are pretty much the same…infinite in power and greatness, power is limitless, capability to do anything, without limits in power….Its pretty much the same.

      I choose these two definitons because they are the two most common definitions among christian scholars. Really the first one, seems to be the consensus that an infinite God is without limits in power, capable to do anything and Sovereign.

      this post is more focus on the contradictory terms of calling god infinite in power and able to do anything, but then saying God Can’t….

      • Rodriguez,

        I still stick to my logic, “God can’t do” and “God choose not to do or choose to do” is two different thing.

        Why I said that, if God can’t do, I going to wondering how the such big universe can be maintained with such great precision, accuracy, with required a lot of equation, science, and management, etc.

        If “God choose not to do”, I no need to wonder about creation/universe; I just need to understand a reason behind it by researching it.

  2. I noticed that you did not spend any time on the fact that an omniscient god cannot have free will. It’s like the time travel loop in that if you know what you will do an infinite amount of time before you will do it you have no choice but to do it that way. If you don’t do it that way then your knowledge is not infinite. Without free will a god with infinite knowledge cannot be omnipotent because it cannot change it’s mind or do anything differently than it knows that it must do the thing.

    If the god is omniscient, it cannot be omnipotent because it cannot have free will.
    If the god is omnipotent, it cannot give itself the power of omniscience.

    The god of the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions cannot exist as described, and this is reason to strongly doubt any of the other descriptions of a god in their holy texts. If the very premise of their deity is not possible, why even think there could be a god?

    You also missed my favorite biblical example: He created perfect little friends, only to have to kick them from the garden. Then he chose to destroy all life saving only one righteous family and ended up having to send himself as a man to be sacrificed to save the people again. This doesn’t say much for infinite knowledge and really puts a damper on the omnipotence argument.]

    If a god is not infinite, why call them god?

    • Myatheistlife,

      In Islamic theology, Even we have similar understanding of God, we disagree on Christianity position of “omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence”.
      Comparing to Islamic theology, we have Allahuakhar (God The Greatest), Al-Alim (All Knowing); about omnipresence – I reluctance to agree on the meaning of omnipresence (the way Christian did). And the character

      “omniscient god cannot have free will.”
      I disagree on that position due
      1) A great God can do everything He want.
      2) A knowledgeable God will know what happen in future, past and present.

      I don’t see the contradiction of this 2 character, but I believe the question should be ask “Did God decrees a matter to happen or not”.

      The statement – “If the god is omniscient, it cannot be omnipotent because it cannot have free will.”
      The way you understand that I understand are “God are omniscient, omnipotent, God should always be YES-man, if not He can’t be omniscient”. I believe there was something wrong with that idea…

      Islamic theology disagree with that Biblical position that you quoted so it not related to us. May be you can ask the Christian fellow to answer it.

      • It does not require that the Christian bible and Islamic theology be the same.

        As you stated, an omniscient god does not have free will. A god that does not have free will is not omnipotent because it cannot change its mind. I’m not saying that such a god doesn’t change its mind, I’m saying it can not change its mind – it lacks the power to do so and as such is not omnipotent and should not be considered a god.

      • Myatheistlife,
        In my reply, I stated I disagree with the statement “omniscient god does not have free will”. So, I hope you can understand my reply better.

        I try to understand your logic. “it lacks the power to do so and as such is not omnipotent and should not be considered a god.”

        If a God have a power to do everything but He choose not to do. So, by your logic, just because He not choose the choice, He is not Great, and He no more God? Can you provide a better logic for me to understand…

        It like telling me, “I have a billion dollar, with that money, I can buy hundred of Aston Martin but I don’t want to buy Aston Martin (for what ever reason). Just because I don’t buy Aston Martin, people say ‘I am no more billionaire’.” Something totally wrong here.
        This is your logic, Isn’t it?

      • If god is perfect and knows the past present and future then the god’s knowledge of the future is perfect. If this is true, then the god cannot change his mind or his knowledge of the future would be flawed/incorrect. If that god cannot change its mind it is not omnipotent.

        If that god can change its mind then it’s knowledge of the future is at best incomplete and that god is not omniscient. Such a god is not perfect and should not be called god, but rather it should be called a powerful being and no more. A powerful being that wants to enslave you is not a friend to you.

        The gods of monotheism (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) are all-powerful, then they can create a task do difficult that they cannot complete it. An omnipotent god is not logical. An omniscient god is not logical. A god that is both omniscient and omnipotent is completely illogical.

        If you have a billion dollars and see Aston Martins all around you but are unable to buy one then you are unable to the use the power of your money and it is useless to you.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      hello atheist life.

      Yeah I didn’t spend anytime on the freewill argument for several reasons, 1) not all christians believe in free-will. 2)I did not want it to be too philosophical and abstract in argument, I wanted it to be simple so anybody could quickly read and understand. 3)this post is more focus on the contradictory terms of calling god infinite in power and able to do anything, but then saying God Can’t…. 4)I’ve been working on a post seris called Is God Perfect? and its not done yet, but almost. Here is a small excerpt from it on Free Will.

      in Exodus 21:14-”The Lord changed his mind(repented) and did not bring on his people the disaster he threatened.” How can all perfect God change his mind? Isn’t he supposed to immutable? Shouldn’t God be omniscient so he shouldn’t have to change his mind?

      Now there are many cases of God changing his mind, and showing he grieved, relented, and repented. Just click on the Skeptics Annoted link here to learn more about it.

      It even lacks on the practical and historical scene:

      In regards to the East Valley Tribune headline from Friday, Aug. 31, 2012: ‘Rights come from God’: I’m happy that God changed his mind in 1920 and gave women the right to vote. I am certainly going to use my God-given right this year! I encourage all women to vote. Congress is wanting to take our rights away. If that happens, it could be another century plus before God changes his mind again.

      “Even God cannot change the past.”
      -Agathon

      I think my perfect god series when it is finally finished, will touch a little more on this topic.

  3. arkenaten says:

    If this god has no limits it can put limits on itself. Surely this is part of this limitlessness….ness?
    If this is not the case, how does one explain the fact that he sent himself to a dirt-poor, mostly illiterate desert ‘backwater’ merely to allow himself to be executed?

    Or, as was said in the Life of Brian…”I am NOT the Messiah, now Eff off”

  4. unklee says:

    Marcus, interesting thoughts, and there’s a lot to be said here.

    1. Whenever we think about infinity, we have trouble. There are logical paradoxes like Hilbert’s Hotel. And some people think the universe has existed for an infinite time, even though we know we can’t count to infinity, and therefore can’t countdown from infinite time to get to now. So it isn’t just our thinking about God that gets into difficulties when we consider the infinite.

    2. “How could an infinite God take on limitations? Could God still be infinite if he is limited?”

    But wouldn’t God be limited if he couldn’t take on limitations? Is God limited if he can’t make a stone too big for him to lift? It is always possible to come up with paradoxes, which is why philosophers say God’s omnipotence extends only to things that are logically sensible.

    I suggest you are confusing essence with choice. God is, in essence, able to do anything that is logically sensible, but he would not choose to do some things and he does choose to do others. If he chooses to limit the use of his power, then that is for our sakes, and it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the power, only that he doesn’t always use it. Most of the examples you give fall into this category.

    An example would be a heavyweight boxer who has the most powerful punch in the world. But when playing with his children, he may have a pretend boxing match, but obviously wouldn’t use his full strength. But this doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the strength, just that he chooses not to use it at that time.

    3. “if something truly and undoubtedly exist, it has to have limitations.”

    Of course. But no-one I know says God doesn’t have limitations. God’s infinite attributes are not infinite everything, no limitations – clearly if we say “God is love” then that defines God, and the statement “God isn’t love” can’t then be true by simple logic. “God’s infinite attributes” are a philosophical abstraction.

    That’s the way I see it. Thanks.

    • M. Rodriguez says:

      But wouldn’t God be limited if he couldn’t take on limitations?

      That does make some sense, so how could you call God infinite after that statement? Unless your definition of infinite is the second, that we are in capable of knowing god cause he is unknowable and unmeasurable.

  5. unklee says:

    Hi myatheistlife

    I was interested in this comment of yours.

    “I noticed that you did not spend any time on the fact that an omniscient god cannot have free will. It’s like the time travel loop in that if you know what you will do an infinite amount of time before you will do it you have no choice but to do it that way. If you don’t do it that way then your knowledge is not infinite. “

    Did you notice that you have introduced time here, when most theists define God as being outside time? If you re-phrase the argument to eliminate time, it becomes present tense, something like this: God knows what he is choosing.

    Put like that, I can’t see how it is incoherent. In fact, if it would be incoherent if God doesn’t know what he is choosing, don’t you think?

    • That would only make sense if we collapse time (past, present, future) into one time reference. In such a case god cannot choose as that involves a time reference and cannot know what happens before it happens if there is no time reference. The claim that god has a plan for everyone’s lives implies a time reference even if it is not the one that we have/share/use.

      Jeremiah 1:5 ESV
      “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

      If god knows the future and plans it, he cannot change it or his knowing of the future would have been wrong. This has the implication that he knows already what he will do in the future, his or ours. If he cannot change the future (change his mind /free will) then either he cannot undo what he has done or is not omnipotent, even if the past and the future are the same things to god. In either case, the two are incompatible. Even if you say that god’s time reference is not our time reference he is clearly aware of time according to various scripture and speaks with reference to time.

      God cannot be omnipotent and know the future, or does not have free will and then why call him god.

      • unklee says:

        But you have again assumed God is in a “time reference”, which is not what most theists assume. Cosmologists tell us that as far as they can understand, time, space (of maybe a dozen dimensions), matter and energy were all created at the big bang. God, being outside that, does not have a time reference as you say. So it doesn’t seem to me that you have addressed this issue.

        As for God having plans for our future, that is easy too. Think of our experience of the world like a large table, where the length of the table is the time axis and the width of the table represents the three spatial dimensions. We move along the table experience the time dimension moment by moment. God, outside of time and space, sees the whole of the life of the universe in one moment, like a person looking at the table from a balcony. So God can have a plan for our future, but it is not future to him, but present.

        I think you are taking a very linear and limited view of time. May I suggest you read Paul Davies’ <About Time which shows how what the physicists think about time can seem paradoxical to us. In my opinion it shows how the use of time paradoxes is a very poor basis for an argument about God.

      • A god could be considered timeless if it does not share our time reference. To be supernatural (not that I believe it possible) does not mean that you are without time reference, only that your time reference is not shared by natural beings.

        Physicists do not claim that all matter and energy were created at the singularity (big bang). If there is a being outside this universe as we know it – it does not mean that god is outside of all existence. Physicists will agree to this.

        Even a being outside of this universe as we know it cannot experience or view this existence without a time reference… even if that reference is vastly different from our own. If the universe, all of it, exists in one moment then god cannot change parts of it and still know that it is what it is. Change itself defines time reference. What is not the same as it was has gone through a period of time. If not, then it was both things and all things at the same time and then what we see of it was either accident or god’s choice. If his choice decides which perception of all perceptions we see, then he still cannot know which he will choose and have free will to change it.

        Whether a god experiences time as we know it or not, that god’s interaction in this existence is time referenced. To know what has not yet happened for us he has to choose what will happen before it happens in this existence. A priori knowledge is incompatible with free will when that knowledge is about your own choices… even if it happens all at once in terms of our references.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        Isn’t the question of god being outside the real of space and time. More of the question…Is god eternal?

      • If the question is only whether or not god is eternal, then any being that does not die will eventually be considered eternal. If a cloud being comes into existence today, 453.7 trillion trillion trillion years from now it will appear that the being has always existed. The definition of eternal is odd. To be exactly eternal a being would have to have existed always, an infinite amount of time. Infinity plus 3 is still infinity. Such terms bring on regression. If the nothing outside of the known universe is not eternal, how would we know. Perhaps it is just a tiny part of something bigger that is also neither infinite nor eternal. To us it appears both infinite and eternal. To declare a god both infinite and eternal is to ignore the infinite regression or declare it non-existent without cause to.

        Troublesome: If a god exists (key word) then existence of some kind had a beginning even if there was absolutely nothing of existence beforehand. If that existence did not include the universe that we know, when our universe begins and we come into being, the god would appear to be eternal but sill not be.

        Finally, even if the god were eternal, it does not make that being a god nor worthy of worship just on the basis of being eternal.

      • M. Rodriguez says:

        At that’s what I get at in the last part of the post. That in using these abstract words to describe a god we are essence also affirm the notion that god is not real but really an abstract concept.

  6. unklee says:

    Thanks for your thoughts. But since the God you are talking about (bound by time in some way) isn’t the God I or most christians believe in, I guess we can agree with your argument if directed towards a God who is time-bound, and ignore it when directed towards our God where it doesn’t apply. Best wishes.

    • arkenaten says:

      The easiest solution is simply to take your god out of the equation and this provides the perfect answer to Marcus’s question.
      In fact, there is no question….

    • If God doesn’t exist in time, then why does the God of the Bible describe himself as existing in time.

      “The one who was, is, and is to come” is all about God existing in time. It basically says that God exists in all times. The God of all time, etc….a God outside of time would be a God that can not or does not interact within our world.

      • arkenaten says:

        @Christianagnostic.
        It is not fair to ask Christians sensible questions. It confuses them and gives them migraine. Ten minutes of William Lane Craig and they usually recover.

      • unklee says:

        If you were trying to describe an eternal God to someone not literate in mathematics and philosophy, could you do better than “The one who was, is, and is to come”? I’m not sure I could.

  7. Myatheistlife,

    “Unable” and “choose not to do” is two different word which are contradict with each others.

    Even you stated as “powerful being”, but we start to understand that a creator of universe is powerful.
    One thing I don’t understand are “Why must God be friend with his creation”? There was no such thing “friend with God”, “buddy with creator”, etc. I really have headache “How God can be buddy”. It totally ridiculous. Somehow like “Hey god, let have a drink”.
    Even, in bible, many verse quoted as “servant of god” (of course different view in my theology).

    How do you a suppose perfect God look like. If He change, He not Omniscient. If He not change, He is not Omniscient too.
    I have a feeling that you like to give a conclusion even the evidence that you proposed are not strong enough. Still, the logic is not there. The most logical answer that I can think from your understanding is “Whatever answer or evidence it is, god are not exist”.

    “If you have a billion dollars and see Aston Martins all around you but are unable to buy one then you are unable to the use the power of your money and it is useless to you.”
    May be He like Bugatti, or Phantom Royce. He have many choice to choose, why He should listen to me?

  8. unklee says:

    That does make some sense, so how could you call God infinite after that statement? Unless your definition of infinite is the second, that we are in capable of knowing god cause he is unknowable and unmeasurable.

    Marcus, I think you are limiting God to our ability to understand and find language to describe him, as well as missing some points.

    1. Like hifzan shafiee says ““Unable” and “choose not to do” is two different word “.

    2. Infinite is a very unspecific word. For example, the universe could conceivably be infinite in spatial extent but not infinite in mass. God could conceivably be infinite in one way, but not in others – again, I don’t think anyone thinks God is infinite in mass! I think it may be better to use the word “unlimited”, which is more specific and clear.

    3. You say “That in using these abstract words to describe a god we are essence also affirm the notion that god is not real but really an abstract concept.” But where is the logic here? The set of integers in infinite in number, and both numbers and “infinite” are in a sense an abstract concept – they don’t exist as material objects. Nevertheless, if I have 2 apples (2 being an integer), the apples are still real.

    4. Of course God is not able to be fully known by us, unless he chooses to make himself known – which christians and other believe. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle describes limits physicists find on our ability to know facts about an electron, yet no-one disputes that the electron exists and has effects.

    So in every case, it can be seen that you are applying arguments that don’t work in other cases, and only seem to work with God because God cannot be known in the same way as we know physical things. I think there are some good reasons to question the existence of God (while thinking there are better reasons to affirm this), but I honestly can’t see that these ones even get to first base.

  9. arkenaten says:

    The thrust of this post sets out with the assumption there is no god (Marcus is an atheist after all) and argues that the narrative construct of the Bible and Koran is claimed by its authors to be without limits, yet, as Marcus demonstrates, biblical text shows this to be a fallacious assertion, clearly demonstrating this god as all others,is man made.

    Unklee and Hifzan enter the fray believing in a god and thus, refute Marcus’s claim.
    Of course, both Unklee and Hifzan claim to be monotheists but cannot agree on whose god is the right one. In context, this is hilarious.

    Maybe Jesus and Mohammed should duke it out for top honours?

    • How about you?
      Agnostic? Marxism? Humanism? Nihilism? Rationalist movement? In context, this is hilarious too. Right?

      When people become “too clever”…

      • arkenaten says:

        Atheist, I thought you already knew? Islam making you deaf, hifzam?
        Clever…me? I doubt it. Intelligent, yes, fairly.
        Intelligent enough to know that getting on my hands and knees on a magic carpet and moaning to a sky daddy 5 times a day will do stuff all to my sense of well-being or my constitution.
        Maybe if those twits in the minarets sang in tune a bit more I might be inclined to listen.

        Tell me, if I convert to Islam, blow s### up in the name of your god, when I go to Heaven will I get to have lots of virgins?

      • Oooo. Atheist? Because I know, I don’t ask you “Are you atheist”, but asking more specifically…
        Actually I just extract the meaning from wikipedia. All above is different type of Atheism..
        Seem you also do not know about your “less belief”. Lack of research.

        I like your style, arrogant, easy explode, irrelevant, illogical and most important easy to predict…
        I suggest you to read Plato and Aristotle.

      • arkenaten says:

        You are still as dense as before….
        An atheist merely does not have a god belief, and stop whining just because your god isn’t everyone’s favorite.

      • By your logic,
        You also should stop talking about God, because you don’t believe in God. I have a question for you…
        Even, the focus more on “Christian’s god”. An atheist merely does not have a god belief, so why keep talking about god, that you don’t believe. I borrow your word: Your dogma too isn’t everyone’s favorite.

        So why I subscribe atheist’s blog?
        1) Because I heard atheist claim “become atheist is great”, so I want to see how great is they are as per claim in term of logic, and their knowledge.
        2) How good they are in term of social- development, economy, self- improvement, law and reality of life. What they offer, etc.
        The best way always to know is by Q&A.

        Last time, I use Sun Tzu book, this time I refering to Marketing Management, 11th Ed, by Philip Kotler said “Poor firm ignore their competitors; average firm copy their competitors; winning firms lead their competitors”. So, I would like to see, Atheist are sit in which kind of firm.. 🙂

        The more I read, I can assume Atheist is “a dogma to get rid Christian”.. but another question I my head “After get rid, what next?” Actually, I also think about that.. Don’t you?

      • arkenaten says:

        “You also should stop talking about God, because you don’t believe in God.”
        You continue to use the CAPITAL letter ‘G’.
        Appreciating that English is not your first language I will, for one last time, assume presume you are not a complete idiot but not understanding what I am writing.

        I do not talk about ‘God’ as if it is some form of sentience. I refer to a god or gods, which are all mere creations by humans. I hope this is clear. If you ask again I can only conclude that you are a blathering idiot.

        “Even, the focus more on “Christian’s god”.”
        Christians like to consider Jesus was a god. An utterly ridiculous notion and probably the only thing you and I might agree upon.

        “so why keep talking about god, that you don’t believe. I borrow your word: Your dogma too isn’t everyone’s favorite.”
        Firstly, for the same reason that Marcus does.
        Secondly, it’s fun to wind up religious fanatics like you
        Thirdly, there is always a chance that a religious person with a higher than average degree of intelligence (which obviously does not apply to you, I am sad to say) that may stumble across a blog such as this and realise that what they have been inculcated with is absolute tripe.

        I hope all misunderstandings have now been cleared up. You may now go back to doodling cartoons of Mohammed.

        The Ark has spoken.
        god bless…..any god you like, okay?

      • I referring to Oxford Advance Learner Dictionary are still using capital for word God. May be you should check your dictionary.
        I also feel great too wind up atheist like you.

        Don’t worry, my degree of intelligence which is average compare to engineers. I hope you also aware your level of intelligent. I remember that you going to participate in Nobel Price this year, hope you done well.

        “realise that what they have been inculcated with is absolute tripe.”
        Don’t worry, as I said earlier, I just want to check on level of logic that being posses by Western Atheist compare to Chinese Atheism. I do not familiar with West Atheist compare to Asian Free Thinker.

        By the way, you still my favorite atheist. 🙂

      • arkenaten says:

        “I referring to Oxford Advance Learner Dictionary are still using capital for word God. ”
        Sigh…yes I should have remembered the dictionary is obliged to include your version of god as a noun because monotheists are still pining for the return of their sky daddy….well Christians at any rate. Muslims only get to meet their version of the sky daddy after they die. Providing, that is, if they can keep their hands off all those tasty virgins, right?
        What will your wife say, Hifzan?

        An atheist is an atheist, Hifzan. They do not have a god belief, whether Eastern or Western.
        Seems in Iran many Muslims are converting to Christianity,or so I have read.
        http://www.christianpost.com/news/open-doors-growth-of-christianity-in-iran-explosive-71946/
        More than the other way round at any rate. Swapping one mindless religion for another it seems?
        Well, at least if these Iranians survive the real threats to their lives they might eventually swap Christianity for atheism. Where there’s life there’s hope, right?

        “By the way, you still my favorite atheist.”
        That’s nice. Aren’t I lucky? Unfortunately I can’t make you my favorite religious person, as this is reserved for my mother.

        But you can be number 36, if you want? That’s better than William Lane Craig, Mohammed, Ayatollah Khomeini and even the Pope. Isn’t that wonderful for you?

      • Everyone know Atheist don’t believe in god, if not they not being called Atheist. Actually, I don’t really care about Atheist and their belief, I just want to know how they think.
        So, why you keep repeating a same thing over and over again?

        Is there any problem between you and me?

      • arkenaten says:

        “I don’t really care about Atheist and their belief, I just want to know how they think.”

        Odd statement. Why do you want to know how they think?
        I believe you really mean why do they think the way they do, yes?
        But the most important part of that sentence you should pay close attention to is ,
        “…. they think.”
        When you start to think in a similar fashion you will become enlightened.

        “Is there any problem between you and me?”

        Personally? How could there be. I do not know you from a bar of soap and all in all,I have no more against your idiotic religion than I do against all other religions.

        Sooner they are gone the better. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

      • My statement is correct, How they (atheist) think.
        In Mathematics problem solving; the final answer is important, but how to solve and getting the final answer is more important. And the understanding of solving mathematical solution today will develop a future understanding of the student when to solve harder question. How good is the mathematician depend on how good their fundamental of understanding the concept.

        So, in view of atheism, it have similar concept. How they develop their school of thought, Plato style? Aristotle? Or it just Christian without god?

        No need to worry about me, I have multi-school of thought which I believe more enlighten than yours.

        “Sooner they are gone the better. Good riddance to bad rubbish”.

        That why, I always ask, “then what next?”, “what you proposal”. The thinking of youth today will develop future tomorrow. If I want to forecast Western future, I need to understand how they think today and I don’t believe Christian will gone forever, maybe the number decrease.
        Common sense…

  10. Daniel says:

    “The infinite nature of God simply means that God exists outside of and is not limited by time or space.”
    I still question the coherency of talking about something outside of time and space. In what sense could something like that be said to exist, or be known to exist? If God’s not in time and space then…well, there’s nowhere for him to exist and no time for him to act within. Where, other than within space (or some hypothetical “other” part of reality), could something exist? With nowhere to be and no medium for anything to happen within, we can’t even explain how he could exist or do anything. Somehow, it seems that in trying to explain God, people have pushed him into the realm of things that make no coherent sense, things that can’t exist in any meaningful way (at least not in any way we can describe or know). It seems very contrived to me, as if we’ve tried to make God so much higher than reality we’ve lost ourselves in contradictions and senseless phrases.

    It’s also strange to think about the common apologetic that God can do anything that is logically sensible. That would imply there’s some greater reality, one that God didn’t create, that he is bound by and contingent upon. In fact, God couldn’t be outside of reality itself (whether reality is just this universe or other realms such as heaven or Alfheim as well), unless God was reality itself, or else he would not be among the set of real things. It’s an interesting idea that “Deacon Duncan” over at Evangelical Realism explores.

    Anyway, Interesting post, I’m really enjoying your blog!

  11. J.W. says:

    First of all, thank you for linking to my article. I argued that infinite quantities are absurd, and since God is an infinite quantity, he must be absurd as well, but it isn’t necessarily true that God is infinite, or a quantity. Richard Dawkins showed quite clearly that if God exists, some other god or thing had to create God, and then some other god before that, until you reason out God by absurdity. There is also the implication that Dawkins makes, which is that whoever created God had to be even more complex than God himself, and that seems impossible. However, what Dawkins overlooks is that God may not consist of matter at all, and then his arguments fall apart, because if God is nothing, then nothing is necessary to create him.

    I don’t think it is necessary for the apologist to defend his belief God that exists. I think it is better, for his sake, if he admits that God doesn’t exist. Then no atheist can refute him. But denying God’s existence isn’t denying his existence. It is only denying a material existence that humans can comprehend. I think it is absurd for anyone to assume that God is matter, and many people do believe this. Where your argument (and atheists in general) falls short, is that God could be zero, non-existent, and not need to have any limitations, rather than thinking of him as existing and being infinite, which is a flat contradiction as you pointed out. I am using the word “God” here, but I don’t mean God in the Judeo-Christian sense. Let “God” mean some unknowable entity, or entities, not to rule out the plural possibilities of God. Try to imagine God, or whatever, as having a negative existence. When you do this, all the atheist’s arguments are pointless, because they are trying to negate a positive. It is much more difficult to negate a negative. Of course, no Christian would buy into this, either. This is more along the lines of Taoist philosophy. For whatever asinine assumptions about God’s existence that Judeo-Christians have, what you say is correct, but the real God, whoever or whatever he is, is beyond argument. Do you really think the Judeo-Christian God exists if we, dumb little humans, are able to doubt it? Clearly we made that up.

  12. Reblogged this on Igtheist Morgan and commented:
    Please subscribe to The BitterSweet End!

  13. Pingback: Is God Eternal? Is God Transcendent? | The BitterSweet End

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s