incognito_man wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:jay_a2j wrote:Good post but many here might not have the capacity to think beyond a slinky concerning gravitational pull much less complex things as infinity.
You know why that is?
BECAUSE NOONE CAN COMPREHEND INFINITY!Anyone who claims so is lying.
Descartes was a good philosopher, but he made many mistakes in his "proof" for god.
I understand that we can't really 'comprehend' infinity. I certainly don't claim to be able to. In fact, the times that I've tried, as I lay in bed before I fall asleep and try to concentrate are damn hard as I can, I literally get dizzy. It's such a cool/weird feeling, I encourage everyone to try.
BUT, my point Descartes was driving at was that we have an idea of infinitude, not necessarily comprehending it, but just the instinct that it's there, something more than finiteness, proves the existence of some infinite creator. Now I'm not saying his proof is flawless, just that it is a strong argument for his point.
Personally, I believe in a higher power. But I think Christianity is the biggest myth (or rather, any religion) this world has ever seen. I wonder if the goofballs that created this jazz ever thought it'd last thousands of years? Crazy...
I still, however, cannot get over the feeling that there is something bigger than me out there. Trying to actually comprehend it is futile, like a fish trying to imagine anything outside of their pond. Perhaps with the help of something else (a fisherman who plucks the bugger out of the lake), the fish can begin to understand something outside its pond, but by itself, it will never understand anything else.
I believe Descartes later said that trying to comprehend god is a futile business. I think he was satisfied believing there is a god, and secondly that god is good (which he uses other arguments to determine).
Descartes is basically giving a version of the Ontological argument. I'm gonna take these summaries from Wiki because its easier and quicker than typing them out myself and getting the wording right...
1. I exist.
2. I have an idea of a supremely perfect being, i.e. a being having all perfections.
3. As an imperfect being I would be unable to create such a concept through my own thoughts.
4. The concept must have come from God.
5. To be a perfect being God must exist.
6. God exists.
Thats Descartes' argument. Unfortunately there is an equally as logical and reasoned counter which goes like this:
1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6. Therefore, God does not exist.
If you find that a little confusing, then let me give an analogy. To see Monet paint a wonderful painting might seem amazing. What a feat for him to have accomplished. However, it would be an EVEN GREATER feat for a five year old child. You would hold the child in even greater regard.
