Rejecting the Infinite Universe; Embracing the Infinite Deity

An infinite universe, to me, causes more problems than it solves. The problem with infinity is that is has a corrosive quality of making everything functionally pea soup. Imagine two images superimposed, and now imagine a million images superimposed and that is what you get in an infinite universe - infinite times over! 

The universe is finite because things that exist must be discrete - i. e. finite. This means that either God must not exist or must not be infinite, unless their is another state beyond absolute finiteness and absolute non-existence. Quantum physics describes something called potential particles that affect the universe EVEN THOUGH THEY DO NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST. 

Particles effect each other forwards and backwards in time. The Big Bang as the theory states, was caused to bang by conditions that existed shortly AFTER the bang triggering its INITIAL state. It was its own parent, so to speak. 

The universe that was to be effected the Big Bang and vice versa. 

The finite universe is driven by potential, whether on the level of quantum physics or at higher energy states by the multiverse. The multiverse is like that superimposed photo metaphor except the superimpositions are implied (i. e. potential) and affecting but not bleeding out the limited universe that IS. Potential drives everything and is the divine engine that runs the universe. I call it/him/her/them God.

If you want goofy pseudo-theories about how human behavior comes from magnetism, read Alex Chiu's Neo-Darwinism: http://www.alexchiu.com/cell/frame.htm

I personally think that love and hate and joy and fear are expressions of the infinite quality that is consciousness. Consciousness is a sort of touchstone between us and potential. It is the way in which we are made in God's image. 

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Original Question from Yahoo Answers

Anything which is infinite, by the very nature of the concept becomes all things, as an infinite variety of apples includes at least one that is an orange and one that is an orangutan etc.. So an infinite amount of nothing eventually becomes something. 

Atheists do not so much have an argument with the existence of God as they do with the existence of infinity because if anything is infinite unicorns can fly. Infinitude opens the door to gods and monsters but the people who so love the Big Bang that they cannot say "theory" behind it want only one kind of unicorn in the universe - the creating singularity. If you are going to accept something so bizzare as the Big Bang (and Hubble and other long range pictures of the universe confirm it) why not go whole hog and imagine a multiverse where all of the other potential universes are NON-EXISTENCE and our little play gets to be real in REACTION to those shadow plays?

Potential particles rule the atom and the infinite nada rules us.

Old Man Infinity and Ms. Nada

What created the universe?
(The original question)


The universe is a result of a surfeit of non-existence. Think of it as a old married couple. Old infinity is the man, and non-existence is his wife. When you breed infinity with non-existence you get reality. Pretend instead of non-existence, you pair infinity with an apple. You get an infinite variety of apples, including red ones, green ones, blue ones, ultra-violet ones, square apples, tubular apples, apples that look like umbrellas, apples that TASTE like umbrellas, follow this list infinitely and you get the whole multiverse. You can do the same thing with non-existence; when you run out of all the non-existent types of non-existence you start to get all the existent types of non-existence, which is what I call the surfeit of non-existence.

The question is, do you believe in the infinite, and that my friend (unfortunately for you) is the God question again

The Creation Story (again)

The Original Question: Can infinite regress be applied to anything?

Infinite regression only applies to things which are infinite. I am a believer in God, but I agree with Dawkins that infinite regression - as I understand it, which is called eternal recurrence - applies to God. That which goes on forever loses all character and becomes a gray melange, everything and nothing, EXCEPT FOR ITS FINITE PARTS. So an infinite thing is no thing (nonexistence) and the surfeit of an infinite nonexistence is EXISTENCE (if something is infinite it becomes all possible - and impossible, versions of itself (which is exactly the infinite regression problem) so that the very thing that he uses to demand there be no creator DEMANDS a universe CREATED OUT OF NOTHING. 

We, those things that exist, are the absurd tip of non-existence, which is a vast ghost ship, as it were, of all our nonexistent potentials; in other words - God. 

God is above mere existence and is not the pantheist's delusion but more than everything and nothing COMBINED.

What is your personal philosophy of the universe?

The Original Question

The universe is a surfeit of non-existence. God swallows the flame ball of eternal recurrence for us and we serve as the valve that allows God to be discrete (meaningfully finite.) Man's finite and imperfect idea of God is our greatest gift to our creator. 

We live, like our creator as disembodied spirits, consciousness without color or shape, tied to a concrete body that identifies and serves us. Our body is our greatest asset. It allows us to be specific things. Limitations make us whole.

Our mind includes a conscience (usually) and an ability to identify patterns, (reason.) Life is meant to be lived, despite the relative misery that comes from the brevity of physical pleasures. Pleasures of the mind are more durable, but everything is an exercise, to be played with dignity and skill, like a game. In the end we go back to that dreaded infinity.  

The formula for beautiful life is finite from left to right and infinite from top to bottom. As Oscar Wilde said, we are all in the gutter but some of us are staring at the stars. 

Thank you for asking the question. I wish someone were able to figure out what I am taking about.

More refuting "theories" of creation

How can atheist live in a world created for no reason?
See the original question

I resent the idea you start with that a degree makes you worthy of discussion and my lack of one devalues my opinion. As a non-atheist, you make a strong case for the atheist BY USING THEIR TACTICS. 

If everyone who knows science better than me is a better judge then your opinion is an outlier and I should ignore it and go with the statistically more consistent answers.

Contradictions in particle physics and the disconnect with the theory of gravity give string theory and the multiverse traction, which by your logic is worthless (which also throws out the unprovable creative intelligence theory.) So rather than trying to use minimalism and reductionism to defeat well accepted theories, why not admit that if God is a cubit or a Higgs particle it diminishes God and your minimalism and disdain for theories is much more atheistic than anything you are arguing against. I believe God can only be encountered by faith and those who wrap God in "theory" are swindlers or fools. Which are you?

If you woke up one day as an atheist,,,

The Original Question (from Yahoo Answers)

I am not a Christian, but I find the people whom I know that are atheists are angrier and distrust a universe that coincidentally gave them a perfect environment to live in and supermarkets filled with food. 

They seem to have a Somali pirate mindset in a Disneyland environment.

It is worth maybe being delusional just to be less paranoid. What I would do differently if I were an atheist, is I would not rely on that part of my brain that is hardwired for faith (which apparently gave my ancestors an evolutionary advantage) and I would say "it's just you, no one or nothing else is going to help you, care about you or even leave you alone in peace." It is not faith in God my atheist would be lacking but faith in his fellow humans. 

If I thought other people's spiritual (moral) instincts were valid I would not need to question their faith and I would be an agnostic and a friend to faith rather than an enemy and parser of the values of others.