In my recent article regarding the Kalam Argument on the existence of God, I have a…well…a reaction from a certain Christian reader. Ok…let me address his comments and at least the said comments can serve as an update on how Filipino Christian apologists approached the Kalam argument (as I have said in the last article, we all need an upgrade).
Christian: on Premise 1, William Lane Craig has already answered the atheist’s question. (Link: Question 106: Is God Actually Infinite?)
Is that the answer of premise 1? Let see…
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
I don’t even see any question to this premise.
I think what the premise is saying is that everything that came to existence has a cause.
Now going back to the issue, it seems the Christian taught that I was talking about the infinite existence of God. The issue here is if actual infinity cannot exist and God is infinite then how did He have lived through an infinite number of hours. I’m not talking about God but on the infinite “hours” that God have lived His life in another dimension.
Well, the best response here that a Christian can used is that God is outside time.
So again, that brings us to the problem of a God that is outside time.
Another response is that God’s time is different from the time in our universe. God’s time is different than our way of viewing things. It is much larger. Really?
So how can we be certain of this “God time?” Well, Dr. Craig calls this a “God’s metaphysical time.” (For more about Craig’s metaphysical time see this link.
According to Dr. Craig, metaphysical time is tensed, dynamic, and non-relative. There is an ever changing fact of the matter about which events are future, which present, and which past. Future events become present, present events become past, and past events sink further and further into the past. Now does this metaphysical time have a beginning? Yes according to Dr. Craig and the very first event in metaphysical time must be a timeless person.
If I’m going to accept this God could have created this metaphysical time long before creating the space-time of our universe, it follows that there could have been something temporally prior to the earliest point in space-time, and Dr. Craig’s argument for creation ex nihilo would then be false.
Anyway, according to Dr. Craig, “denying that God is actually infinite in the quantitative sense in no way implies that God is finite. This inference does not follow, since the quantitative sense of infinity may be simply inapplicable to God.” In short, only finite things are under that rule (pwera ang diyos).
So here’s the problem. Actual infinite cannot exist, yet an absolute infinite time can exist (that’s the time when God created the metaphysical time of course)..weh?
Those who started the Kalam argument feels that time is finite…for example, al-Kindi felt that time was finite because an actual infinite is impossible and time is a quantitative thing that must be finite in measure (1979, 25). Saadia also felt that the concept of infinite time is reduced to absurdity because of the problem of regressing an actual infinite (Craig, 1979, 39).
So that’s it…time is finite, yet God existed for an “infinite time”…oh well…
The Christian may not have been updated after all when he said: “God is outside our universe. He is also not subjected to time.” For WLC, God is “timeless, spaceless”(http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5180), which is different from the Christian’s response.
Moreover, I wonder where the Christian got the idea when he said,“God created this ‘place’ on his own being.” Actually he was led into it by the previous answer of the atheist, because he himself gave the wrong answer to the atheist.
Additional:
On timeless and spaceless:
“For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham’s Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe out of nothing.” —WLC (http://www.euroleadershipresources.org)/resource.php?ID=51)
What are the problems to such claims? According to John R. Lucas, “To say that God is outside time, as many theologians do, is to deny, in effect, that God is a person.” (Concepts of Person and Christian Ethics by Stanley Rudman p. 154) He continues, “if I will try to resolve the problem of God’s omniscience by making him timeless, I may create a worse problem by denying to Him the essence of what it means to be a person.”
Ah OK…so a timeless and space less God is not a person. I can’t make a relationship with a non-person, can you?
The western Christian God is a personal god. He is a deity who judge people. This god in not a mere impersonal being – he thinks, imagine, act, he has emotion – he can be jealous, happy, sad and angry (a lot)
Being outside time.
The guy to be blamed here is the pagan philosopher Plotinus (204-207 CE). Plotinus took the idea from Plato who took it from guys like Parmenides. So, if you guys want a God who is quite beyond intellectual discourses, you can always rely on Plotinus to do the job right (Yep, Plotinus is also the guy who invented the Trinity Doctrine).
Now, since God is considered immutable (cannot and does not change) it was deem to be compatible on being timeless (again…thanks to the Neo-Platonists). Immutability and being eternal are Greek ideas of a perfect god.
If you believe that God is a person, well…you might encounter some problems.
A timeless being cannot think since mental events and successions of thought use up time. He doesn’t have any intelligence since thinking and planning requires time. Also, a timeless being is a block of stone since time is necessary for movement. In relation with space, a being who is timeless and space-less will be trapped in his own attributes.
On Premise 2:
With the introductory statement:
Pinoy Atheist just dumped Physics’ own definition of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe). I wonder how he could even start discussing about the universe with an atheist-physicist, if he could not even agree with the physicist in the definition of the universe.
With Pinoy Atheist’s question:
“Now if the universe is not included (or the same as) everything, then how can its beginning (the universe) the same with the beginning of everything?” he should ask a physicist, because that is physics’ claim.
Defining the Universe.
The Christian seems to define the word universe base on a physicist’s definition…now, how can we define the word “universe?”
According to his own source, the Wikipedia, it defines the universe as commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all physical matter and energy, the planets, stars, galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, although this usage may differ with the context. The term universe may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world, or nature.
The word universe was derived from the Old French word Univers, which in turn derives from the Latin word universum.The Latin word was used by Cicero and later Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern English word is used. The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction Unvorsum — first used by Lucretius in Book IV (line 262) of his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus’, or “one”) with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning “something rotated, rolled, changed”). Lucretius used the word in the sense “everything rolled into one, everything combined into one”.
So what’s the difference between everything and the universe?
Well just look at your dictionary folks. Everything means, “All things or all of a group of things.”
Now again…is the universe included with everything or is it separate? If ‘universe’ is defined as the same as ‘everything’ (or vice versa) then a set should not be considered a number of itself. Now if the universe is not a member of itself, its beginning is not the same with the other beginning. Simple rule huh? And of course I don’t need to bother a physicist about it.
Pinoy Atheist claimed he dumped Premises 1 & 2. I did not even see any falsification that “The universe began to exist” in his presentation/imaginary discussion. I can’t even trace what he believes about the universe: if it eternal or temporal or what? So how does this dump the idea that “the universe began to exist,” if Pinoy Atheist affirms spontaneous cause of the universe? Did he not just agree with Premise 2?
Now let’s see, did I agree with Premise 2? In syllogism, the axiom or premises are not independent with one another. That means each premise is in relationship with each other. Now let see… In premise one: Everything that exists has a cause must follow premise 2 that the universe began to exist so we can have the conclusion that the universe has a cause.
Let’s review the following syllogism:
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
So how did I eliminate those two?
In Premise (1) we found a problem in the word “everything”. 1.) It doesn’t include God. Remember that the Kalam argument is proving the existence of God, right? So why he is already excluded in the argument?
In Premise (2) I am questioning if the universe and “everything” (in premise 1) is the same entity?
So if Premise (1) and Premise (2) has a problem, how can we arrive at the conclusion?
If he says that I agreed to premise two that…”the universe began to exist in spontaneous cause” that violates premise one and that will have an effect with the conclusion. Oh, and why talk about what I believed? The article is not about me.
There are at least 10 possible interpretations of quantum mechanics, including determined and indeterminate. It cannot be conclusively said that quantum mechanics are spontaneous and accidents, not yet! Moreover, physicists are having a hard time proving that quantum mechanics can cause a universe. Probabilistic Causation is not WLC’s own. It is part of Philosophy
Who’s saying the term probabilistic causation is Dr. Craig’s own invention? You can find some references about this on Dr. Craig and Dr. Smith discussion on that matter (Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology By William Lane Craig, Quentin Smith).
Dr. Craig claims that quantum events are caused in a non predetermined manner which he calls probabilistic causality. That means the cause could be accidental, spontaneous – not predetermined.
I’ve already wrote a response to this base on David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779)
According to David Hume, “In such a chain too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes which succeed it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct counties into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.”
That means when we speak of causes there must be an explanation for an event. Spontaneous events don’t have any explanation. No explanation, no cause.
Let’s be a little scientific here… According to Quintin Smith, “The wave function of the universe in Hartle and Hawking’s paper gives a probabilistic and noncausal explanation of why our universe exists. More precisely, it provides an unconditional probability for the existence of a universe of our sort (i.e., an expanding [and later contracting] universe with an early inflationary era and with matter that is evenly distributed on large scales). Given only their functional law of nature, there is a high probability that a universe of this sort begins to exist uncaused.” (Philo: A Journal of Philosophy, Volume 1, Issue 1, 1998, pp. 75-94.)
Until next time.
1/X so his argument is an inductive argument where "premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion." Although it looks like it is a deduction but it is not. Why? Because numerical mathematical precision only works in actual numerical values such as 1 apple to 1 apple is 2 apples. That is deduction. The reason why I say it is an inductive argument is that "0" is to me a "probablity." You have to tweak the meaning of the variables to make an addition equation to get to zero. I might be ignorant but what exactly does he mean by "when the universe's matter is added up, it is equal to 0." Because I would think that if you add up something to something in a long series the numbers would add up. Why zero? I humbly submit, John.
In order for something to be called the necessary cause, it must have to have existed eternally (did not begin to exist) and therefore uncaused.
I can think of at least three things that could have been the necessary cause:
1. A creator (not necessarily the Judeo-Christian God but simply God in the deistic sense)
2. The "pre-Big Bang" singularity or energy – if it has existed eternally in some form or another (I think this is what Dawkins meant with "the natural universe as a whole")
3. The laws of nature or quantum mechanics where matter and antimatter are spontaneously created from nothing
Innerminds,
ERRATUM on my last post: I said "he suffers the logical fallacy of self-creation, this fallacy is merely an extension of the fallacy of non-contradiction." it should have been "[law] of non-contradiction."
ON SINGULARITY
I've heard a Catholic priest philosopher discuss this. The singularity is the agnostic Creator. What the phrase "point of singularity" did is to extend the definition of the simplicity of that first cause. However, it seems that energy doesn't communicate information. Again, the point of singularity is merely depersonalizing the first cause or the Prime Mover.
ON ANTIMATTER
this suffers the law of non-contradiction and fallacy of self-creation because in this argument the matter and antimatter have to be both non-existent and existent at the same time.
However, I will look into these issues further.
Yes, kindly look into these issues further. I'm no expert in quantum mechanics but I've heard that reality can be quite counterintuitive at the quantum level and may even seem to violate the law of non-contradiction.
As to the fallacy of self-creation, I disagree because if the laws of quantum mechanics have existed eternally, matter and antimatter were not "self-created" but rather created by such laws.
//"As to the fallacy of self-creation, I disagree because if the laws of quantum mechanics have existed eternally, matter and antimatter were not "self-created" but rather created by such laws."//
Interesting. Do you not fear that this argument will justify an argument from "being": which then would indicate that the foundation of things is not existence but essences — in this case "laws"? This would then make reality built on rationality ("laws") and not on the empirical ("matter and antimatter").
But you have said here some very interesting empirical data that I need to look into. One of the few encounters I have with antimatter is sadly with Dan Brown's novel and the scientist-priest there seems to put down the proposition that God created the antimatter as the simplest base of His creative work.
Natatakot lang ako mag investigate further kasi baka mapabayaan ko tong trabaho ko.
//Do you not fear that this argument will justify an argument from "being": which then would indicate that the foundation of things is not existence but essences — in this case "laws"? This would then make reality built on rationality ("laws") and not on the empirical ("matter and antimatter").//
If quantum mechanics is able to prove that the foundation of things is not existence but essence, then so be it (being afraid of such possibility doesn't render it impossible). Stephen Hawking wrote: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." In this case the law of gravity could have been the necessary cause – if it has existed eternally.
Excellent point!
If ever I would go to the other side, I think I might have to hurdle the axiom of "If there is a law, there must be a lawgiver" based on theories of information. a law is information based as much as the DNA is also information-based in order to create well-instructed proteins.
a law serves that function too. if it is a law of gravity, then there is information there. and when there is information, there is an intentional, rational source for that information. this information would allow gravity to react to density, weight, momentum, etc — ie., gravity either throws it down, or keeps it afloat, etc. these are some mechanisms that wouldn't be possible without first creating a mechanism. that's my stupid anecdote on physics.
however, i have a similar anecdote with the DNA — a very basic structure in biology.
although i must admit that this sounds like an argument for a necessary being. buti na lang meron akong revelatory data kung saan yung mga taong tulad nila John, Paul & Peter did their own induction and conclusions for me to base my belief in God.
Ah, we have a thread on revelatory data at the FF forum! 🙂
http://www.filipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com/forum/viewtop…
"3. The laws of nature or quantum mechanics where matter and antimatter are spontaneously created from nothing" – inner minds.
Actually what might boggle people about Laurence Krause's lecture is that, when the universe's matter is added up, it is equal to 0. So there is a problem that when matter and anti-matter negating each other which makes for existence as not from "nothing" but everything is still technically "nothing".
No problem @ JC,
1.Sabihin na natin na naniniwala ka na person ang isang diyos. Now…if we say that God is both timeless and spaceless, that will betray his being a person. So sa madaling salita, whether God is a person (that he cannot be time-less and space less) OR a God person that is also timeless and space less can’t exist.
2.Kalam is an argument use to prove that God exist. Now bakit naging special pleading yan? Well that’s because God is already excluded in premise (1). In your statement “god is in the CAUSE category because he is not an EFFECT of something. “ The question will be why will God be the cause? Well according to you, because God is the “necessary” cause? Tama ba? Again, why is God the necessary cause?
Remember, before we can assume that God is the cause category, we have to establish first that God exist. Until you can give me a good explanation how Kalam predicts only one necessary causal agent which is God…well I still can’t give a good reason to accept your opinion @ JC.,
On the issue ni Richard Dawkins, I think ang issue lang po dito is that he's just asking, " why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything (or at least things that begin) must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole?"
To say na ang answer po dito is that God (by default) is necessary being because if, ontologically, reality at one point is nothing, how can we have something…now…well…this will then just fall to the same point that before we say that God is the necessary being, we have to produce God first. To say that God is an ontological necessity is just making Him exist by definition. It really doesn't make much of an answer po.
By the way, ah medyo abangan mo na lang @ JC at gagawa ako ng supplement sa article na ito. I'm going to make something about the First cause and necessary cause.
I hope I did satisfy you today Mr. Pesebre. Uhhhh…and since I am expecting you to post more comments, I would like to inform you po na baka hindi ako kaagad makasagot muna ang mga posts mo sa mga darating na araw. Medyo busy ako sa work (I have to work…) and since malapit na ang Holiday Season, medyo mati-tie muna ako sa trabaho.
Now don't worry, babalikan ko po ang susunod na mga post nyo. Hoping for your patience and consideration.
ciao!
@Pinoy Atheist
=============
Now…if we say that God is both timeless and spaceless, that will betray his being a person.
=============
Actually nakukulitan na ko sa sarili ko. Baka mahina lang ang aptitude ko sa sinasabi mo pero tingnan mo tong statement mo: this is a conclusion. If I may put it in a modus here it is.
P1: If a being is a person, he must be within time and space.
P2: God is a person.
.:. Therefore, he is within time and space.
Ang tanong ko is the inductive data for P1 & P2. Ang pagkakaintindi ko kasi, you don't just throw around axioms. These axioms must be propped up by data (eg. Russelian logic). Now I can make inductive data for these propositions of mine by appealing to modus ponens and inductive-deductive scientific inquiry. That seems satisfying don't you think? But what I am not satisfied is your assertions above.
==============
Kalam is an argument use to prove that God exist. Now bakit naging special pleading yan? Well that’s because God is already excluded in premise
==============
Well because formally, God as the CAUSE explains the EFFECT. That's the narrative. If the logic is able to establish that the world is an EFFECT, then it is favorably easy to deduce that it has a CAUSE.
yun ang limits ng language lang neto. you cannot force the kalam cosmological argument to explain what it doesn't intend to explain. the limits of the argument is CAUSE and EFFECT; and not an exhaustive presentation of proof for the existence of God. what i am merely saying is let us work in the realm of what the argument presents muna.
ako hindi ako masyadong sold out sa kalam, but that is beside the point here. i can also do that but for the sake of discourse, i am pursuing along the lines of what you are pursuing and i think you are jumping overboard by attacking the argument on areas that it is not pursuing, that is, again, the exhaustive explanation of the existence of God.
================
Remember, before we can assume that God is the cause category, we have to establish first that God exist. Until you can give me a good explanation how Kalam predicts only one necessary causal agent which is God…well I still can’t give a good reason to accept your opinion
================
This is an indication that exhaustively proving that God exists is a different category and would involve another modus. You say that "we have to establish first." Well that seems to be very apparent in the Kalam. It looks like it has already established that God exists but that is another modus. And yes, I can give you a "good explanation how Kalam predicts one necessary causal agent which is God" because that is already the argument of the Kalam.
================
To say that God is an ontological necessity is just making Him exist by definition
================
Well you could downplay it but it is still a rational argument built on rational propositions. you here are arguing rationally, meaning you are dealing with concepts (with the assumption that they are built on facts). you cannot say that rational categories don't have a place in arguments because arguments by its very nature rest on the rational. if you want to argue that a "rock is yellow" you don't have to put that actual, literal "yellow rock" in your brain to carry out a rational discussion. instead you create a conceptual symbol of that rock making it a brain entity which would then be taken to the argument.
Sabi ni Richard Dawkins na pinost mo,
// Why does god not begin?//
In classical ontology (to which dawkins seems to be reacting), god is a necessary being because if, ontologically, reality at one point is nothing, how can we have something now? nothing cannot create something, i can prove that to you scientifically now (eg, I would like to ask a non-entity to make a comment in this thread.) that necessitates heavy difficulty rationally. from what antecedent, rational propositions can you establish that the starting point was nothing and then it exploded.
if you grant that the Big Bang was the cause, then clearly you are saying that it is a EFFECT because of the explosion. scientifically, one cannot explode without some sort of friction or pressure. this will only mean that friction and pressure is infinite. but then again, for friction to occur there must be a rubbing of at least two entities; and for pressure to occur, something must expand. Then we suffer again a regression of saying that the rubbing things and the expanding thing are infinite. if we pursue this further on the things, then we proceed to another regression.
Another rational difficulty is that if dawkins say that at one point there was nothing and then there was something, then he suffers the logical fallacy of self-creation, this fallacy is merely an extension of the fallacy of non-contradiction. self-creation would posit that something has to exist before its non-existence — making the contradiction apparent.
dawkins seems to be reacting on a misunderstanding of the law of cause and effect. the law of cause and effect teaches that for every EFFECT there is an antecedent CAUSE; and not for EVERYTHING, there is an antecedent SOMETHING. simple as that. the physical analogy of this is the theory of motions. again to belabor the point, i don't need an external force to make me start on flipping the first of a set of queued dominos.
respectfully i submit,
John Pesebre
Di ko pa rin makuha kasi it is question begging of not explaining the proof for the proposition. Bakit nga, "To say that God is outside time, as many theologians do, is to deny, in effect, that God is a person”? Bakit din it is "a problem of the incoherence of the divine attributes of God"? At bakit din, "To say that God is a person will disagree on his being timeless and space less or vice versa."
Sorry mabagal lang talaga ako pag nakita ko na ang conclusion at hindi ko makita ang mga antecedents.
==============
On "special pleading":
The argument of kalam doesn't suffer the fallacy of special pleading because the antecedent of the proposition of kalam does not posit that God is an "effect" or "created." You must recognize that the kalam cosmological argument is a rational mechanism that provides "cause" for the "effect." It makes that category. Special pleading on the other hand is a fallacy that could be used on a misunderstanding of the law of cause and effect. The law of causality doesn't say, "everything has a cause" but what it says is "every CAUSE has an EFFECT." the special pleading would then appear, "if everything has a cause, and god is part of everything, then he must have a cause." this was the category mistake of both russell and john stuart mill. you are making this mistake also. in the law of cause and effect, god is in the CAUSE category because he is not an EFFECT of something.
I would have conceded the fact that the weakness of the kalam argument is that it really explains the EFFECT rather than the CAUSE. in the theory of motions, one can investigate the domino trail and prove that there was change and there was motion. but, it is fair to assume that the one who pushed the first domino must be himself or itself (Prime Mover) be immovable by the dominoes. He/It tips the domino and the dominoes fall. But that is just about how we can know the strength of this argument.
My point is that if you expose the kalam cosmological argument to its bare essential, understanding its modus ponens then you don't have to belabor a point that is outside what it is trying to point out. You don't have to force the fallacy of special pleading. Doing so might indicate that you misunderstand the argument.
1. In your first request for elaboration, you are asking if being timeless and space less has something to do with God's non-existence, right?
Ans: It depends if you believe that God is a person. If you believe that God is a person, being timeless and space less will have an effect. As what ohn R. Lucas, “To say that God is outside time, as many theologians do, is to deny, in effect, that God is a person.” It's a problem of the incoherence of the divine attributes of God. To say that God is a person will disagree on his being timeless and space less or vice versa.
On number 2, the argument of the Kalam is to prove that God exist. Now if Premise 1 already excluded God in the statement, then the argument is a form of the fallacy of special pleading.
As Richard Dawkins said, "Whether we qualify the first premise to exclude non-beginning things (as the kalam argument does) or not (as the cosmological does), the essential question is why it is more logically defensible to claim that for the rule that everything (or at least things that begin) must have a cause, an exception is made for God but not for the natural universe as a whole? Why does god not begin? It appears to be a wholly arbitrary choice, as in either case the rule must be violated, but with the proposition of God, we have to add something to the theory that adds nothing else to it.
Thanks for the question JC.
Have a nice day.
John Paraiso,
may you please elaborate further on your understanding of this on your post above:
//According to John R. Lucas, “To say that God is outside time, as many theologians do, is to deny, in effect, that God is a person.” (Concepts of Person and Christian Ethics by Stanley Rudman p. 154) He continues, “if I will try to resolve the problem of God’s omniscience by making him timeless, I may create a worse problem by denying to Him the essence of what it means to be a person.”'//
To which you commented,
//Ah OK…so a timeless and space less God is not a person. I can’t make a relationship with a non-person, can you?//
Again, can you please elaborate on why you see it valid that a "timeless" and "spaceless" being would argue for God's non-existence.
=======
You commented something that would indicate that you don't understand the antecedents (much less, the language) of the argument for you said,
In Premise (1) we found a problem in the word “everything”. 1.) It doesn’t include God. Remember that the Kalam argument is proving the existence of God, right? So why he is already excluded in the argument?
And to think that this comment of yours proceeded from this
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.
indicates that you misunderstood the argument
The argument per se centers on the argument on the "created" — something that has a beginning of existence. God on the other hand does not qualify as something that has a beginning of existence. In simple language, because the world is created, it has a Creator.
In your case, you made the mistake of conflating the antecedent and the conclusion of the one you are critiquing.
With all due respect, I respectfully submit,
John Pesebre
If God is infinite then: Why does anything else exist? Or stated another way: if God was infinite, nothing else would exist because there would be no space to share with infinity.____Infinite by definition, is boundless, meaning encompassing every conceivable existence that there is. So your very existence proves that God is not infinite because if you exist and God exists, that in itself shows a limit (no matter how small it may be) to the supposedly "infinite entity". Also, the fact that your mind is independent and rejects this supposed infinity, is in itself a "limit" to this infinity.____Ah, brilliant?
THERE IS NO GOD! There's no more to it. Forget all your pseudo-intellectual bullshitty arguments about this subject. For evidence look at the state of the Philippines; the citizens of which supposedly love GOD the most. What a cruel bastard is he did exist.
@Conyo Holy infinity!