News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

Has anyone heard a good argument against infinite regress?

Started by jumbojak, June 12, 2012, 03:39:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stevil

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 18, 2012, 08:07:15 PM
What about a creator God who isn't actually omnipotent, etc. A non-omni God. Is such a God incoherent, in your thinking?
If a god is perfect, already complete, why would it bother to create existence?
This god has nothing to learn, no surprises, so what would be the point? It would be 15 billion years of things happening that it already knew would happen.
This would be like a living hell for it.

Recusant

Quote from: Stevil on July 18, 2012, 08:31:34 PM
. . . It would be 15 billion years of things happening that it already knew would happen.
This would be like a living hell for it.

Yep, but an all powerful god could just "turn their all-knowingness off" as Mr. Deity does (around the 2:10 mark).
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Stevil on July 18, 2012, 08:31:34 PM

If a god is perfect, already complete, why would it bother to create existence?

Maybe God isn't "perfect" in that sense.  If God is love, which is the ultimate Christian definition of God, then being alone would be incomprehensible. What is love if there is no object of the love?  Creation of other things would be inevitable. The concept of a perfect, immutable, omni-everything God is more a Greek construct that a Hebrew/Aramaic concept, which is where the Christian God began.

Quote from: Stevil on July 18, 2012, 08:31:34 PM
This god has nothing to learn, no surprises, so what would be the point? It would be 15 billion years of things happening that it already knew would happen.
This would be like a living hell for it.

Again, if God is love (the Christian definition of God), then God needs something. Thus, waiting 13.75 billion (not 15 billion) years would be a labor of love, not meaningless in the least. 

jumbojak

I am defining God as a being who is maximally great in all possible respects. If someone cannot meet that criteria I don't think they should be called God. The fact that a person is able to create a universe seems like a side issue.

This boils down to justification of worship in my view. What value would there be in idolizing a person who is defficient in some aspect of their charachter or abilities? Personally I'm not tremendously impressed by an individual who is powerful, or caring, or wise: you have the same potential to make mistakes an anyone else and are undeserving of actual worship.

Further, I admit that I do not understand the definition of God as love and have been puzzled by the notion since I was a child. What do you mean when you say a person is an emotion?

"Amazing what chimney sweeping can teach us, no? Keep your fire hot and
your flue clean."  - Ecurb Noselrub

"I'd be incensed by your impudence were I not so impressed by your memory." - Siz

Stevil

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 19, 2012, 03:42:05 AM
If God is love, which is the ultimate Christian definition of God, ...
What is love if there is no object of the love?
The answer would be nothing, therefore, humans created god, not the other way around  ;)

Without god, we are still humans, without us, god is nothing.