Just using this post as an example, I've seen others use this argument before and find it to be pretty common, I had a question about it..
I would say that if a presumed God's mind is within reach of our capacity to understand, we'd be in sore need of a divine upgrade. This I imagine to be toe-stub obvious to anyone who's taken a psychedelic.
But why? It seems anyone could just say that, provide no evidence, and call it a day..
Another inconsistency. Lets accept that the mind of god is infinite. This offers further indication, along side the complexity of the universe, that god himself is very complicated. Most of the people who presume we can never know god, also presume that he created the universe, an argument that is essentially one from infinite regress. Since we can not fathom a random convergence being responsible for creation, we assign god as a terminator to regression. But God is a poor terminator, if he is indeed complicated, because it would take random converge that is orders of magnitude even more unlikely to create god than it would the universe. So using god as a terminator actually compounds the problem, since god himself would have had to be purposely created. Unless of course you are willing to believe god himself was a product of random convergence and then created the universe, which seems like an unnecessarily complicated assumption compared to the big bang.
actually in that situation, he would still be the creator of the universe. it just means something even bigger than god created him. which also creates another problem of who or what created the creator of the creator?
it doesnt say god doesnt exist.
That just becomes turtles all the way down, no? An elegant conception of the universe requires a final repository of complexity and consequence.
yes but then you have the problem of spontaneous complexity. and that complexed 'thing' must be more complexed than the universe, because it supposedly created it. but if you say that the universe just 'popped into existence', you have an easier time explaining it than explaining what created the even more complexed creator.
There actually is a mathematics of the unknowable. There are layers, degrees of infinity. By definition, a god has author/editor privileges over the deep code of the cosmos. As a human, I am daily amazed at how tiny, fitful, limited my awareness is, let alone my capacity to really understand stuff. I extrapolate and believe/decide that this is a universal feature of the human condition. If a presumed god is as limited as we are, i want no part of it. It would seem to violate Goedel's theorem - a complete self-consistent system, in this case the universe in full extent and history, simply cannot be framed by a mind/spirit/whatever of our limited dimensionality, a mind fully describable within the parameters of the universe-system. So a god, should there be one, HAS to be infinite by at least one extra dimension if only to satisfy math that we, a very young species still bound to our home planet, by gum!, have already worked out.
Of course. I am not arguing FOR a creator. Occam's Chainsaw holds for me: the simplest explanation has to be natural, since the universe appears to be 100% nature. Big Bang cosmology, which (absent a better explanation) I accept, merely states that there was an earliest point of time, and describes (poorly, tentatively) the initial conditions of space, mass/energy, the major dimensional anchors of whichness. How this happened, from where the first seed of our reality was extruded ... is currently beyond our capacity to even address, since I accept as axiom that the pre-primal matrix from which our nascent universe emerged has a higher dimension count. "Just popped into existence" is the safety play at the current embryonic stage of natural philosophy. "Someone did it" is an appeal to sentiment. Humans tend to be profoundly sentimental.
