The Infinite is everyone’s God

 

I wrote this to a student’s response about the infinite:

Is it an assumption that "...there must always be a beginning of something"?  (meaning God must have a beginning) Here is the problem with that logic. 

 

1.     I have stated earlier in this discussion there cannot be an infinite regress!  It is impossible from a logical perspective.  Because an infinite regress is impossible there must be an infinite cause.  That infinite cause is God!  It does not matter what people choose to believe about who God is, God must be infinite for anything to exist. This is not believing anything about a particular religion, it is only being logical about what caused all that is.  So, to believe the infinite “nothing” created everything is believing God is infinitely dumb, magical and really powerful, yet mindless.  It is not denying God it is only trying to make God fit a preferred narrative.   There is no way around the infinite!  Even if you call the infinite "nothing".  

v  This is why it is not the same argument as what defines Christianity.  Christianity states the infinite cause is God; Both infinitely capable and infinitely good.

v  Believing nothing is "God"; the infinite cause of all, that is only diminishing the attributes of the causer, it does not get away from having to have a causer. To say nothing is the cause of everything is just like saying God is the cause of everything.  Both beliefs are in the infinite, the Infinite Nothingness is dumb, magical, non-mind god that does extraordinary things.  But since this Nothing Infinite Cause does not have a mind; it does not give humans a reason to trust minds.

2.     For humans to believe that any conclusion made by a mind is worthwhile or logical, God must be infinitely good and infinitely capable.  Without God being both, humans cannot trust any conclusions and therefore have no business presenting opinions.  This may be disappointing, but it is the only logical conclusion.  Any opinion that diminishes God also diminishes any reason to state the opinion because the one stating the opinion does not believe his or her mind can logically come to reasonable conclusions (if the person is being logical).  If the person stating such opinions does believe s/he is rational and has good conclusions it is either because s/he is coming from a circular logic perspective or an infinite regress perspective. "I think I am rational because I think I am rational" or "I think humans are rational because humans say so"; the other problem: "I am rational because my parents are rational, and they are rational because their parents were etc..."  Where did anyone get the idea humans are rational?  How did the first humans who started believing in the rational nature of humans get the idea that they were rational?  We are going back to the problem of infinite regress.  The only logical conclusion for a human to trust any mind is if God is infinitely good and infinitely capable.  

3.     You said: "I want it to be clear that this entire debate is entirely cyclical."  That may be true for you because, and I want to say this with the up most respect, your arguments are circular.  My arguments are not.  What else could be the cause of all things besides the infinite?  Explain another “Causer” that is logical.  What other purely logical reason can any human trust a mind besides the logical conclusions that the maker of the mind is both infinitely capable and infinitely good?  There is no other way.  

4.     All choices of belief are faith based when it comes to the cause of creation.  What makes the most sense? 

All beliefs about what God is. What is true?

 

If we have a universe (which we do), something must have started it. That something is our god whether we like it or not. It is the reason we can be here and have this discussion. Without the starter we would not exist. Some people (typically atheists who say they rely on science) call that starter a 'nothing', but they are using the term nothing in a way to describe something. Because absolute- nothing cannot do anything. This infinite nothing is non-mind, dumb, magical “nothing” god. Some people think the universe is eternal or the multi-verse is eternal, if true, then that would end up being the infinite non-mind, dumb, magical god. And of course, some people believe in all different types of gods. And some people believe in one God.

The point is that all people believe in something even when they deny the existence of something else. I personally think it is unbelievable to believe in a natural type god because nothing in nature (without a mind) looks intelligent enough to be able to make things that are so complex, such as DNA, let alone causing all that is- to come from nothing. I think that it takes a lot of blind faith to believe in naturalism's god/s.  

If one were to say that there is no evidence of an outside the universe god, this is also making a statement of faith. It is believing that no holy book that man believes in is right or from an infinite source. That is making a huge statement of being able to know all things about all holy books.  

Humans assume that they are individually intelligent and corporately intelligent; is that based in a faith? Why does an individual trust his/her mind to come to rational conclusions? What do people base their ideas of reality on?  How does anyone know what is real? This goes back to what is our creator! We make assumptions about that and that informs our beliefs about reality. 

You may say we can never know for sure, but that argument is saying that you know enough to make a blanket statement for all humans. That is a logical fallacy. To make a claim that the debate will not end because there is insufficient evidence to prove one way, or another is stating there is enough evidence for you to come to a conclusion and you know all there is to know about the subject.

Or, to recognize it is faith and one does not know all things about the subject is to make the faith assumption that we cannot know what the cause of us is; or if the cause is more likely a non-mind type god- neither of these beliefs gives us any reason to believe in any conclusion that one might come to. What I mean is this. If a non-mind, dumb god allowed for human minds, why would any human mind logically believe we humans have minds that are trustworthy? So yes, it is much more logical to conclude that a mindful creator made our minds.

To make the faith claim that an all-powerful mind made us gives us at least a reason to trust our minds and conclusions. Without God being all powerful we have little reason to believe anything is true or at least knowable, but again this leads to logical fallacies. If God is only semi good or semi capable, we, again, are left with little reason to trust human conclusions. If one believes this, why does one come to the logical conclusion that they have a right idea about anything? What basis does the person have to trust their own thoughts and or conclusions?

If we realize that, is it possible that the all-powerful mind revealed in a way that no man could mess it up? If so, what source seems the most logical?  If not, then, we are back to not having a capable enough creator, therefore, we really have no reason to trust our own minds and conclusions.

The point is that everyone has faith in something. If one believes in a non-mind creator by default of not believing in a mindful creator that person has very little reason to trust conclusions that are made by anyone (including his or herself).  The same goes for any variations of god being slightly less to extremely less than infinitely capable and infinitely good! In diminishing who God is (in one’s mind) one only diminishes his/her ability to trust the conclusions of all humans. In doing so this logically leaves the person with no logical reason to express an opinion.

Lastly, the only logical way to trust your mind is to have a will that is absolutely surrendered to the mind of God! The infinitely good and capable mind allows for free will, therefore leaving us with only one logical conclusion; our minds are only as trustworthy as they are submitted to the God that made them. We have the freedom to choose total submission and trust our creator to lead our minds (this includes trusting all the tools He has given us, including real science). Or we choose self-focus which leads us to having no logical reason to trust our minds (and using all his tools incorrectly). Is this a foundation based on faith? Absolutely!! But every foundation is based on faith!!! Is your faith in a lesser god and, or a non-mind god; or is your faith in the one true God? Only one belief gives you a reason to trust your conclusion.