Originally posted by googlefudge
Just a side note, we can actually know that Pi goes on forever.
It's not something we have to wonder about, it's been proved mathematically.
And I think you are getting a bit wibbly about infinity not mathematically justified.
[quote]And thus to say that an entity "God" does NOT exist (atheism) presumes you have defined
this entity in the first at doesn't mean that they happen/exist
here, or anywhere in the visible universe)
Thanks gf. I was unaware about proof of pi's infinity.
I wasn't saying infinity wasn't justified as a concept in mathematics. What was trying to point to was discussions I have encountered where the concept of infinity, like zero, does raise issues (perhaps not "problems) within mathematics, although accepted as a concept that has a "completing" function in the mathenatical schema - ie necessary. I am a layman and open to correction by the mathematically knowledgable.
edit: "Claiming that god exists is a positive claim that needs to be supported by positive evidence."
This of course is logical, but when we examine the phrase 'god exists' and we are talking of the likes of infinity, the discussion turns a priori to the meanings of 'god" and 'exists' before making positive claims, (or denying them) on the basis of evidence, with one such evidence put forward being the concept of infinity - inherently indefinable and without "form".
If theists argue for "God" as a being, where do we find such a 'being' in an infinite field? If the atheist says, 'no evidence' is he able to define without question what he means by 'evidence' ?
However, I do think atheists are correct in questioning proffered so-called evidence of "God". This base of discussion is undeveloped from the start with theistic assumptions and a more developed discussion is the nature of the term "to exist" - or not to "exist".
This definition of "existence" problem also impinges directly on quantum "entities" that both appear to exist and not to exist as a separate entity.
Buddhist philosophy centers around this with its concept of a potent "emptiness" or absence. It states that all is interdependent for existence and stating that a thing or entity exists unto itself alone (including god or person "selves" ) is not supportable.
I am saying that before you can argue whether a thing exists - "is" or "is not" - what it means 'to exist' needs to be clarified. And impinging on this is the concept of infinity - if something is boundless, it is inherently unable to be defined, in form at least.
I agree something can be possible and logical but not existent (even interdependently).
My main issue for this post is the way theists talk about "God" as infinite, but then talk almost in the same breath as if "God" is bounded and definable. This like many theistic argument is unfortunately contradictory and unexplored fully.