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?
No comments:
Post a Comment