Religion Paper

[Chris Connelly]

Hi,

I just wrote a paper for a religion class addressing the question of whether more than one god can exist. I'm presenting it here in its entirety for debate and discussion. Any glaring errors?

Chris

“If ultimate reality is really ultimate, can there be more than one god?” (question supplied by teacher)

In any philosophical analysis, it is important to first understand the question being asked and define all relevant terms. When considering the question above, the first thing one must determine is how to determine “ultimate reality.”

Everything humans observe passes into and out of being, including the universe itself. If this were true of everything in existence, a philosophical problem arises. There would either have to be a time where nothing existed or an infinite regression of existence. Since it is known that there is existence now (“cogito ergo sum”), both cases are impossible. In the former, something came from nothing, a logical impossibility. The latter possibility, infinite regression, is also logically impossible, akin to a discussion of jumping out of a bottomless pit. Therefore, it can be concluded that something always was, is now, and always will be. In fact, that something must exist outside time (which had a beginning), and the constraints of human language make it difficult to even discuss. This “something” can be defined as the ultimate reality, for it exists independently of everything else. It is the logical end of discussions about existence.

The second term that must be defined is “god.” This is a more problematic definition, as it carries different connotations for different people at different times. In order for a sensible and relevant discussion to occur, the definition should be as close as possible to a catch-all, allowing room for the various ideas of god(s) humans have adopted at different times. Generally speaking, a god is intellectual, having the ability to think, and capable of having an effect on reality, which includes physical existence and any non-physical existence humans have no knowledge of.

Now that all relevant terms have been defined, the question can be analyzed. The assumption made, indicated by the word “if,” is: “Ultimate reality is really ultimate.” In other words, something has always been, is now, and will always be, even outside time.

Next comes the question itself: “Can there be more than one god?” Rephrasing the question yields: “Can more than one thinking being with power to affect reality exist?” In total, one may ponder: “If something has always been, is now, and will always be, even outside time, can more than one thinking being with power to affect reality exist?”

Accepting the premise that ultimate reality exists, a question arises regarding its nature. What is ultimate reality? Within the confines of the question being discussed, there are three possibilities: ultimate reality may contain no gods, one god, or multiple gods. It should be noted that the possibility that no gods exist does not lead one to the conclusion that ultimate reality does not exist. That line of logic, though many would suggest it, is a non sequitur. If no gods exist, but ultimate reality does, that simply means whatever ultimate reality consists of does not meet the established criteria for being a god, namely thinking and having power.

In supplying an answer to the question posed, the possibilities can be further narrowed to two. The possibilities of no gods existing and one god existing can be combined. In either case, there are not more than one god.

At this point, the river of logic runs dry. Humans have not experienced ultimate reality, and they have no basis from which to draw conclusions about it. The observations made in the physical world, and even the laws of logic that seem to govern it, may not apply in another realm of existence.

Ultimately, however, the question posed does not ask if there are more than one god, but if there can be more than one god. To the best of human knowledge, the answer is yes. Nothing within the realm of human knowledge eliminates the possibility that there are more than one god in ultimate reality. The same can be said of the possibilities that there is one god or that there are no gods. This conclusion may be unsatisfying, but it is the best that pure logic can offer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I take it the teacher has defined "ultimate reality" for the class. What did the teacher say it means?

[Skeptic Ginger]

You say, "infinite regression, is also logically impossible." Then you go on to say, "Therefore, it can be concluded that something always was, is now, and always will be." What's the difference?

It's beginning to sound like you are trying to fit the evidence to a preconceived conclusion.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not convinced you have explained what you mean by "ultimate reality". The rest of your arguments therefore don't flow from the logic you have presented, IMO.

Sorry, but welcome to the forum anyway. :D

[Chris Connelly]

Skeptigirl,

Thanks for your feedback! The teacher has not defined ultimate reality. This is an introductory assignment, so I gather that he wants to see where we go with it on our own.

As I understand it, infinite regression equates to an infinite chain of causes. A was caused by B, which was caused by C, which was caused by D... My position was that something exists for all time and outside time, with no cause. This is ultimate reality. I'm not entirely comfortable with this, but it was the only thing I could come up with to define ultimate reality and agree with the provided premise. Otherwise, "ultimate reality" is meaningless, the premise is invalid, and I'm nowhere.

Chris

[LordoftheLeftHand]

In the former, something came from nothing, a logical impossibility.
While this sounds great for your class, it might not be correct.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

In either case, there are not more than one god.
Maybe change "are" to "is" (but I'm not sure, just reads funny IMO).

[Skeptic Ginger]

How is "always existed" any more logical than your other two options?

[Pure Argent]

Hi,

I just wrote a paper for a religion class addressing the question of whether more than one god can exist. I'm presenting it here in its entirety for debate and discussion. Any glaring errors?

Chris

All righty, I'll try to help.

“If ultimate reality is really ultimate, can there be more than one god?” (question supplied by teacher)

If ultimate reality hasn't been defined, then this question is nonsense. And it contains the implicit assumption that there is at least one god.

In any philosophical analysis, it is important to first understand the question being asked and define all relevant terms. When considering the question above, the first thing one must determine is how to determine “ultimate reality.”

Very good. You spotted it too.

Everything humans observe passes into and out of being, including the universe itself. If this were true of everything in existence, a philosophical problem arises. There would either have to be a time where nothing existed or an infinite regression of existence. Since it is known that there is existence now (“cogito ergo sum”), both cases are impossible.

Not really. Given ONLY the fact that there is existence now, and taking no other facts as true, there is nothing that prevents the universe from having a beginning or from being eternal. You may want to add more conditions to this statement.

In the former, something came from nothing, a logical impossibility.

A logical impossibility when the laws of this universe apply. When our universe didn't exist, there was no time, and therefore no cause/effect law. Something could have indeed come from nothing.

The latter possibility, infinite regression, is also logically impossible, akin to a discussion of jumping out of a bottomless pit.

Not really. It isn't logically impossible. It just isn't possible within this universe.

Therefore, it can be concluded that something always was, is now, and always will be.

As shown above, this doesn't follow.

In fact, that something must exist outside time (which had a beginning), and the constraints of human language make it difficult to even discuss. This “something” can be defined as the ultimate reality, for it exists independently of everything else. It is the logical end of discussions about existence.

Nope. Again, see above.

The second term that must be defined is “god.” This is a more problematic definition, as it carries different connotations for different people at different times. In order for a sensible and relevant discussion to occur, the definition should be as close as possible to a catch-all, allowing room for the various ideas of god(s) humans have adopted at different times. Generally speaking, a god is intellectual, having the ability to think, and capable of having an effect on reality, which includes physical existence and any non-physical existence humans have no knowledge of.

This defines human beings.

Now that all relevant terms have been defined, the question can be analyzed. The assumption made, indicated by the word “if,” is: “Ultimate reality is really ultimate.” In other words, something has always been, is now, and will always be, even outside time.

Next comes the question itself: “Can there be more than one god?” Rephrasing the question yields: “Can more than one thinking being with power to affect reality exist?” In total, one may ponder: “If something has always been, is now, and will always be, even outside time, can more than one thinking being with power to affect reality exist?”

Again, the fact that your definition of "god" can also apply to "human" makes this nonsense. You are, essentially, asking "If god exists, can humans exist?"

Accepting the premise that ultimate reality exists, a question arises regarding its nature. What is ultimate reality? Within the confines of the question being discussed, there are three possibilities: ultimate reality may contain no gods, one god, or multiple gods. It should be noted that the possibility that no gods exist does not lead one to the conclusion that ultimate reality does not exist. That line of logic, though many would suggest it, is a non sequitur. If no gods exist, but ultimate reality does, that simply means whatever ultimate reality consists of does not meet the established criteria for being a god, namely thinking and having power.

Very good. You avoided the black-and-white fallacy. Better than a lot of people do.

In supplying an answer to the question posed, the possibilities can be further narrowed to two. The possibilities of no gods existing and one god existing can be combined. In either case, there are not more than one god.

...and you just turned around and walked back into the black-and-white. There is a HUGE difference between the two options.

At this point, the river of logic runs dry. Humans have not experienced ultimate reality, and they have no basis from which to draw conclusions about it. The observations made in the physical world, and even the laws of logic that seem to govern it, may not apply in another realm of existence.

Very good.

Ultimately, however, the question posed does not ask if there are more than one god, but if there can be more than one god. To the best of human knowledge, the answer is yes. Nothing within the realm of human knowledge eliminates the possibility that there are more than one god in ultimate reality. The same can be said of the possibilities that there is one god or that there are no gods. This conclusion may be unsatisfying, but it is the best that pure logic can offer.

Yep. About right. But you may want to work on the problems I pointed out above. Get rid of those, and I think you're good.

[TheAnachronism]

...and you just turned around and walked back into the black-and-white. There is a HUGE difference between the two options.

I understood the part you quoted to mean that, for his paper, he only wanted to show whether or not more than one god could exist. He therefore could separate the options into two main categories: those that would fulfill the condition of more than one god existing and those that would not. Of the three options of (a) no god existing, (b) one god existing and (c) more than one god existing, the only ones that would not fulfill the condition are (a) and (b).

[Chris Connelly]

LordoftheLeftHand,

I've always taken "something can't come from nothing" as a given, but I'm definitely open to reconsider. That's an argument I've heard often in religion class, but it seemed to make sense. Regarding the grammar, you're 100% that it sounds weird, but I think it's right due to a technicality. My teachers can be very picky on these things, so I often agonize over is/are, that/which, etc instead of going with the way normal people write and speak :)

Skeptigirl,

I used that particular line of reasoning for two different reasons. Firstly, if you eliminate infinite regression and something from nothing, something that always existed is what's left. Secondly, I believe "ultimate reality" implies something that always existed and is unchanging. I'm not sure how else to define it. Personally, I'm not sure how the universe came to be, so I'd limit myself to speculations. Bubble universes? Expansion and contraction? Other theories? It seems beyond the realm of human knowledge (though I'd be happy to reconsider the last point).

ETA: The more that I think about it, the more I think supporting the idea that something always existed as opposed to the other options may not be logical. I still think it is implied in the premise though.

Pure_Argent,

Wow! Thanks for the analysis - you've given me a lot to think about. Right off the bat, it seems some of my assumptions were unfounded. I'll have to think about the best way to revise within the framework of the assignment. Something-from-nothing and infinite regression seem impossible and the teacher probably assumes that is a given (speaking from prior experience in such classes), but you're absolutely right that they may be possible outside our physical universe.

Regarding the issue of the definition for gods aligning with a definition for humans, I think that is appropriate, considering most gods are human like. The statement I was making (or intending to) was, "If X does not think, or if X does not have power to act, then X is not a god." I stand by that statement. It does not imply that X is a god if it can think or act.

I'm not sure I understand your point about the black-and-white fallacy. TheAnachronism was right on the money. The question asks if there are more than one god. If there is no god, the answer is no. If there is one god, the answer is no. Insofar as the question is concerned, both scenarios yield the same answer. Only the possibility of there being multiple gods yields a yes answer.

Thanks to all who have contributed - great stuff! I'm seriously rethinking several of my statements in light of your comments.

Thanks again,
Chris

[Skeptic Ginger]

I used that particular line of reasoning for two different reasons. Firstly, if you eliminate infinite regression and something from nothing, something that always existed is what's left.So if I eliminate something from nothing and infinite existence in the past, infinite regression is all that is left.

And if I eliminate infinite regression and infinite existence in the past, something from nothing is left.

Do you see where you are just using confirmation bias to chose the option that fits your existing beliefs?

Secondly, I believe "ultimate reality" implies something that always existed and is unchanging. Which essentially says you are starting with the assumption there is a god or at least the conditions which others define as god. That is starting with the conclusion and trying to then fit the evidence to the conclusion. In rational thinking, one follows the evidence to the conclusion, not the other way around.


Of course if your paper is purely hypothetical, and assumes there is either one or more gods, then you could make anything up you wanted to and no one could really present evidence to the contrary. After all, you are making reality up in this case.

[Wolfman]

To me, "ultimate reality" means simply "the pinnacle of reality"...a point beyond which there is nothing else to discover or understand about that reality...whatever that reality may be. There's no reason that such a reality cannot have limitations.

Regarding the "infinite regression" thing, let me point out that you are assuming our universe's 'reality' as somehow defining the nature of reality. We live in a universe that has time, where effect follows cause, where the arrow of time points (so far as we can tell) in one direction. Let me now present two possible explanations wherein we can have our universe without any supernatural entity being involved whatsoever:

1) Looped Time: Personally, I don't go for this one...but there is no reason that time couldn't, in fact, loop backwards on itself. The universe goes forwards for billions of years, and then reverses and goes backwards for billions of years. A yo-yo in effect. No need for infinite regression...except if one raises the question of when the yo-yo effect started. Which is why I like explanation number two better.

2) The Metaverse: Assume some sort of 'reality' where time is not a dimension...or where it operates in a very different manner (ie. effect can preceed cause). If there is such a reality, and time doesn't exist...then the question of "beginning" and "end" becomes entirely moot. It is, in fact, the proverbial "Always was, always is, and always will be" reality. And that our universe is a result of some sort of 'bubble' or 'eruption' from that reality...one in which time became a dimension that defined the reality of our universe. No need for any god whatsoever.

NOTE: Have just re-read your OP, and your comments could actually be taken as making an argument similar to my own in point two above. So let me move forward to some conclusions:

1) There's no need to assume or require the existence of any god or supernatural entity.

2) You seem to be assuming that the god you are discussing must be a part of the "ultimate reality". Well, how about this as a scenario: in the 'metaverse', where there is no time, no beginning, no end, no cause, and no effect...there is also no god. But the creation of our universe also resulted in the creation of one or more gods as a part of that universe ("god" here being defined simply as an entity that has existed since the beginning of time in our universe, and was not created as a subsequent act of natural processes). If one accepts such a proposition, then there is no reason that one cannot have multiple gods. The fact that you're discussing "ultimate reality" does not mean that any resulting gods must also have ultimate power (ie. omnipotence, omniscience, etc.); or even that they must exist outside of the reference of our own reality here in this universe.

I am an atheist, and don't seriously consider this to be in any way a 'proof' of the existence of any god or supernatural entity; but if one wants to simply discuss theory, and assume the existence of some sort of god, there's no reason on earth that there couldn't be more than one.

[Chris Connelly]

Skeptigirl,

I see your point. However, I still think there being something that always existed is the most logical solution. In fact, reading Wolfman's post, the metaverse theory is very similar to what I had in mind, though I may not have articulated it properly. I do not believe my line of logic in any way proves the existence of a god or gods.

Also, note that my conclusion is not that there is a god. My conclusion is that there may be no gods, one god, or multiple gods, but we have no way of telling which is the case. None of those possibilities can be denied or confirmed based on human knowledge and experience.

Wolfman,

The metaverse is, essentially, what I had in mind. I think I'll need to rephrase the paper to clarify that. Perhaps "something" always existing is a misnomer. State of affairs maybe? I agree with you on both of your conclusions, though I may have been ambiguous in my paper.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Skeptigirl,

I see your point. However, I still think there being something that always existed is the most logical solution. In fact, reading Wolfman's post, the metaverse theory is very similar to what I had in mind, though I may not have articulated it properly. I do not believe my line of logic in any way proves the existence of a god or gods.We of course base such a choice, something from nothing or something infinitely existing in the past, on our personal experiences, not on the evidence. I find neither option logical so I choose to leave both options on equal footing based on the evidence.

As for your infinite regression and infinite past, those are two versions of the same thing IMO.

Also, note that my conclusion is not that there is a god. My conclusion is that there may be no gods, one god, or multiple gods, but we have no way of telling which is the case. None of those possibilities can be denied or confirmed based on human knowledge and experience.....I disagree. I believe the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion gods are fictional beings people created.

Technically you could substitute 'invisible pink unicorns' (IPUs) for 'god' and say, "there may be no IPUs, one IPU, or multiple IPUs, but we have no way of telling which is the case." On that basis, you can make an argument on the scientific principle of infinite possibilities, but you can also see such a statement has less meaning when you substitute IPUs or fairies or Leprechauns for gods. When you put a known fictional character in the statement, it changes the value of the statement. I'm convinced the evidence is there which supports the conclusion, gods are as fictional as fairies and IPUs.

[Marduk]

“If ultimate reality is really ultimate, can there be more than one god?”
save some time and answer with
"There is no God, period"
;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Hi,

I just wrote a paper for a religion class addressing the question of whether more than one god can exist. I'm presenting it here in its entirety for debate and discussion. Any glaring errors?

Chris

“If ultimate reality is really ultimate, can there be more than one god?” (question supplied by teacher)

In any philosophical analysis, it is important to first understand the question being asked and define all relevant terms. When considering the question above, the first thing one must determine is how to determine “ultimate reality.”

Excellent start.


Everything humans observe passes into and out of being, including the universe itself. If this were true of everything in existence, a philosophical problem arises. There would either have to be a time where nothing existed or an infinite regression of existence. Since it is known that there is existence now (“cogito ergo sum”), both cases are impossible. In the former, something came from nothing, a logical impossibility. The latter possibility, infinite regression, is also logically impossible, akin to a discussion of jumping out of a bottomless pit. Therefore, it can be concluded that something always was, is now, and always will be. In fact, that something must exist outside time (which had a beginning), and the constraints of human language make it difficult to even discuss. This “something” can be defined as the ultimate reality, for it exists independently of everything else. It is the logical end of discussions about existence.

This is where you start to make some unjustified assumptions. Firstly we don't know for sure that something can't come from nothing: we just haven't observed it happening, ever. Secondly we don't know for sure that there can't be an infinite chain of regression, since the universe is at perfect liberty to be stranger than we can immediately wrap our brains around. Thirdly, even if you accept that the previous two options are impossible and conclude that something "always was, is now, and always will be", it doesn't follow that the something is unitary. Maybe the something that was is no more, and the something that is now is us, and the somethings that will be in the future are different again.

That's the problem with metaphysics (and theology). It's mostly an exercise in smuggling in unjustifiable assumptions and then running with them.


The second term that must be defined is “god.” This is a more problematic definition, as it carries different connotations for different people at different times. In order for a sensible and relevant discussion to occur, the definition should be as close as possible to a catch-all, allowing room for the various ideas of god(s) humans have adopted at different times. Generally speaking, a god is intellectual, having the ability to think, and capable of having an effect on reality, which includes physical existence and any non-physical existence humans have no knowledge of.

I think that from an academic standpoint this definition is a tactical mistake. It's not exactly attacking a straw man, but it's not attacking the most interesting possible version of the contradictory argument.

What metaphysicians like to do is to jack up a convenient definition of God as eternal and all-powerful and whatnot, and then argue about what follows from those definitions. Typically the moves they use to get to their convenient definition are ridiculous, but that's a different argument. So in this case what I suspect your teacher wants is for you to engage with the argument that because God is totally awesome, and God would be less than totally awesome if there were other Gods around, there must only be one God.

By defining God in relatively modest terms, so that nothing logically follows from your definition of God, you're behaving completely rationally but you're avoiding talking about the consequences of assuming an omnipotent God. In undergraduate academia the purpose of assessment essays is not to state the "right" answer but to demonstrate your mastery of the topic. This essay doesn't demonstrate that you understand the omnipotent God rubbish, so you won't get as good a mark as another student who uses their essay as an opportunity to show off how well they understand that rubbish.

[Chris Connelly]

I've revised my essay, and am posting the current version for all to see. I have done a 180 on some claims, but that is either because I've changed my mind (on some issues) or changed the way I've interpreted the premise (on other issues). I try not to flip flop, but I do change position when logic suggests I have been wrong.

Chris


“If ultimate reality is really ultimate, can there be more than one god?”

In any philosophical analysis, it is important to first understand the question being asked and define all relevant terms. When considering the question above, the first thing one must determine is how to define “ultimate reality.”

“Ultimate reality” can most readily be defined at everything in existence. We can only observe a limited portion of the physical universe. Because 100% of our experience is within the physical universe, we have no basis from which to assess what may or may not exist outside it or what characteristics anything outside the universe would possess if such things did exist. There are multiple theories that attempt to explain or define what is outside the universe, but given our complete lack of knowledge in this area, all are equally likely or unlikely. The laws we observe inside the universe, even those of time and causation, do not necessarily apply outside it (or even to all things within it).

The second term that must be defined is “god.” This is a more problematic definition, as “god” carries different connotations for different people at different times. In order for a sensible and relevant discussion to occur, the definition should be as close as possible to a catch-all, allowing room for the various ideas of god(s) humans have adopted at different times. Generally speaking, a god can think, can act, and exists outside the physical universe. This is the most useful definition of god for the question given, as any further statements would exclude certain gods in favor of others.

Now that all relevant terms have been defined, the question can be analyzed. The assumption made, indicated by the word “if,” is: “Ultimate reality is really ultimate.” In other words, reality exists objectively and is not affected or altered by human knowledge of lack thereof.

Next comes the question itself: “Can there be more than one god?” Rephrasing the question yields: “Can more than one thinking being with power to affect reality exist outside the physical universe?” In total, one may ponder: “If reality exists independently of human knowledge, can more than one thinking being with power to affect reality exist outside the physical universe?”

Accepting the premise that ultimate reality exists, one may ponder what exists outside the physical universe. Within the confines of the question being discussed, there are three possibilities: ultimate reality may contain no gods, one god, or multiple gods.

At this point, the river of logic runs dry. Humans have not experienced anything outside the physical universe, and they have no basis from which to draw conclusions about the existence or nature of such things. The observations made in the physical world, and even the laws of logic that seem to govern it, may not apply outside the physical universe.

Ultimately, however, the question posed does not ask if there are more than one god, but if there can be more than one god. To the best of human knowledge, the answer is yes. Nothing within the realm of human knowledge eliminates the possibility that there are more than one god in ultimate reality. The same can be said of the possibilities that there is one god or that there are no gods. If one wishes to further continue the conversation and replace “can there be more than one god” with “are there more than one god,” the burden of proof rests squarely on the one claiming that a god or gods exist. In the absence of evidence, the default logical position is disbelief.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is an excellent revision.

[mummymonkey]

save some time and answer with
"There is no God, period"
;)

Shouldn't that be "There are no gods"?

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I like it. Let us know what the instructor says. :D

[Marduk]

Shouldn't that be "There are no gods"?

if there isn't a single one I would think it uneccessary to belabour the point
:D

[Beerina]

Hi,

I just wrote a paper for a religion class addressing the question of whether more than one god can exist. I'm presenting it here in its entirety for debate and discussion. Any glaring errors?


Trivially, infinite beings trip up on the same Goedelization argument that finite computational models do.

Also, there is no largest "infinite set", in the Cantor sense. The power set of any infinite set has no 1-1 and onto mapping with the original infinite set. And that set can have its own power set taken, and so on.

If a god is an infinite bag of abilities, there is thus no most powerful god. Not only that, but any given infinite god can have a god as infinite to him as Yahweh supposedly is to us, and so on.

It's turtles all the way up.


So the point of this is that, even if "just one" god existed, said god could not be certain he didn't have another, passive but infinitely bigger god waiting around to judge him at some point.




I frequently talk to Yahweh to let him know such a god is planning to harshly judge him. He, of course, thinks I'm insane and just making it up. Indeed, that even I acknowledge I'm making it up is almost certainly part of the super-god's obfuscation to prevent the supergod's ooo look beer.

[Chris Connelly]

Beerina,

Not sure I understand your reasoning. If a god was infinitely powerful, it would by definition be invincible. No other god could defeat it, or else its powers would be finite. There are not different degrees of infinity. "More / less infinite" is a nonsensical phrase, like "invisible pink unicorn" or "the square root of orange."

Chris

[Merko]

You have to define what you mean by 'God'. Polytheistic gods are obviously not considered omnipotent in the same sense as monotheistic gods often are. But monotheistic gods do not necessarily have to be considered omnipotent either (Ahura Mazda, for example, is considered to be stronger than the evil Ahriman, but he is not infinitely stong, and therefore it will take a long time to finally win the battle between good and evil).

Moreover, just as monotheists have certain cop-outs for things that their supposedly all-powerful gods cannot do, polytheists can have such cop-outs as well. For example, Christians usually claim that although God could in principle control our minds, he won't ever do so, and therefore we have free will. Polytheists could equally well claim that even though God A and God B are both omnipotent, they would never want to try to measure their forces against each other, and therefore the problem of their hypothetical struggle is moot.

[Merko]

"More / less infinite" is a nonsensical phrase, like "invisible pink unicorn" or "the square root of orange."
Mathematically speaking, it is not. Whether or not that has any bearing on theology, I don't know. Personally, I think the idea of an omnipotent God is the most unlikely thing I could ever imagine, but maybe that just shows my limitations.

[Chris Connelly]

Merko,

It was my understanding that infinity is a mathematical concept rather than a number. As a concept, you cannot perform operations or make comparisons with infinity. I.e. 2 X infinity > infinity is neither true nor false, as it has no meaning. Something can be infinite or finite, but it cannot be partially infinite or more/less infinite.

Chris

[Simon39759]

Nope, in math, 2 x infinity > infinity.

[Chris Connelly]

Simon,

Maybe you can double infinity under certain theories, but you can't in the context of this discussion. Logic:

1. Infinite power has no limit.
2. If there were a power greater than infinite power, then infinite power would be limited.
3. If so, unlimited power is limited.
4. Since the above statement is self-evidently false, it follows that there is no power greater than infinite power.

Of course, we have no evidence infinite power exists, so the discussion is moot in one sense. However, more than infinite anything is nonsensical. A being with infinite power can be conceived, but a being with twice that much power is like a line sqrt -1 feet long - it simply cannot be.

Chris

ETA: I see you prefaced your statement with "in math." You're right - theoretically you can do just about anything. But I think the comparison of more than infinity to imaginary numbers is appropriate - both exist conceptually, but can never describe a state of reality.

[Simon39759]

It's not 'under certain theories', it is within the framework of mathematics, which is what the posts were about.

Now, from a 'reality' point of view, you are right. But then, the whole concept of 'infinity' does not really make sense to me within the concept of reality.

[Chris Connelly]

Simon,

I have to respectfully disagree. The discussion should be in terms of reality when you are considering a hypothetical god / supreme being. Most posters here do not believe in one, but if there were one, he/she/it would exist in reality and not just mathematically. A hypothetical god with infinite powers existing in reality would necessarily be stronger than all other beings. Now that I think about it, I think we're basically saying the same thing. Mathematically, you can have quantities greater than infinity, but that cannot be in reality (which would include a god / gods).

Chris

[Skeptic Ginger]

If 2X infinity is > than infinity, what is the result of the equation, 2X infinity - infinity?

I do believe it equals zero just as infinity minus infinity = o. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Now, infinity plus one - infinity = 1

;)

[Brian-M]

If 2X infinity is > than infinity, what is the result of the equation, 2X infinity - infinity?

I do believe it equals zero just as infinity minus infinity = o. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Now, infinity plus one - infinity = 1

;)


Infinities come in different sizes.

The infinite number of fractions is larger than the infinite number of non-prime integers, which in turn is larger than the infinite number of prime numbers... and so on.

So, if A = Infinite and B = 2A then...

B-A = A.

infinite_B - infinite_A = infinite_A

A and B are both infinite... but different sizes of infinite. So in this case, infinite minus infinite = infinite.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually my understanding, which may be flawed, is that what you are saying is just wrong. The set of infinite non-prime integers is considered by mathematicians to be the same size as the set of prime integers, because you can put them into a 1:1 relationship. The first non-prime integer goes with the first prime integer, the second non-prime integer with the second prime integer and so on to infinity. Hence, they are the same size.

However I strongly suspect that trying to generalise from mathematical conventions about mathematical infinities to philosophical conceptions of "infinite power" or "infinite knowledge" or "infinite goodness" won't turn out to be supportable. I'd look at an argument if someone had one but I'd be surprised if I thought it was convincing.

[Brian-M]

Actually my understanding, which may be flawed, is that what you are saying is just wrong. The set of infinite non-prime integers is considered by mathematicians to be the same size as the set of prime integers, because you can put them into a 1:1 relationship. The first non-prime integer goes with the first prime integer, the second non-prime integer with the second prime integer and so on to infinity. Hence, they are the same size.

However I strongly suspect that trying to generalise from mathematical conventions about mathematical infinities to philosophical conceptions of "infinite power" or "infinite knowledge" or "infinite goodness" won't turn out to be supportable. I'd look at an argument if someone had one but I'd be surprised if I thought it was convincing.


I could very well be wrong with my choice of example (wouldn't be surprised) but the underlying point is still valid.


But going back to the topic of Gods... many polytheistic societies believed in gods with limited powers, abilities and areas of authority. Bringing "infinite" into the argument assumes a monotheistic point of view to begin with.