If the universe is infinite, is God more likely?

[VanillaCone]

I have been reading up on the theory that the universe is infinite, and how in an infinite universe, just about everything that can exist does exist.

It made me wonder if the prospect of an infinite universe has any bearing on the probability that there exists something that would meet our standard definition of a god. I'm thinking it ups the likelihood of a god. Am I off base here?

 

[ehcks]

What is a god? Before you can suggest the possibility of something, you have to define it. What is the thing you're suggesting might be more likely?

What is this "standard definition of a god"? You say "our," but I don't really think there's any mutual agreement on it.

 

[Jalok]

I have ben reading up on the theory that the universe is infinite, and how in an infinite universe, just about everything that can exist does exist.

It made me wonder if the prospect of an infinite universe has any bearing on the probability that there exists something that would meet our standard definition of a god. I'm thinking it ups the likelihood of a god. Am I off base here?

I think that part missing is "without breaking any physical laws". The universe can be any size you wish, but if the rules are the same everywhere in it, thinking nuclear and EM and quantum(always bloody quantum), then the chances of randomgodX don't really change.

jalok

 

[Brian-M]

I have ben reading up on the theory that the universe is infinite,

Infinite in what way? Spacially? Temporally? Infinitely recursive?

and how in an infinite universe, just about everything that can exist does exist.

Not necessarily true.

For example, take the number 1.01001000100001000001.... and so on, with the sequence of zeros between the ones longer by one digit each repetition.

This number sequence is infinite and non-repeating, but the sequences "1111" or "10101", or any of an infinite number of possible sequences never appear in it.

It made me wonder if the prospect of an infinite universe has any bearing on the probability that there exists something that would meet our standard definition of a god. I'm thinking it ups the likelihood of a god. Am I off base here?

You're off base. The standard definition of God (as Christians would have us believe) is the creator of the universe. Why would the size of the universe affect the possibility of it's presumed creator having existed?

Plus any God that would be generally recognized as a God would have properties that are incompatible with the laws of physics, and the probability of God existing due to chance in an infinite universe is about the same as if you drew a ball from a lotto machine containing infinite numbered balls, and got a ball with a picture of Smurfette on it instead. You can't get an outcome that's not one of the possibilities, no matter how infinite the impossibilities may be.

 

[VanillaCone]

What is a god? Before you can suggest the possibility of something, you have to define it. What is the thing you're suggesting might be more likely?

What is this "standard definition of a god"? You say "our," but I don't really think there's any mutual agreement on it.

I had in mind the stereotypical all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being. Isn't that the standard definition?

 

[VanillaCone]

I think that part missing is "without breaking any physical laws". The universe can be any size you wish, but if the rules are the same everywhere in it, thinking nuclear and EM and quantum(always bloody quantum), then the chances of randomgodX don't really change.

jalok

How about a multiverse with infinite universes, each with its own laws of physics? Because that has been proposed by theoretical physicists, as well. Does that possibility affect the odds of a god?

 

[VanillaCone]

Infinite in what way? Spacially? Temporally? Infinitely recursive?

My understanding of the theory is that the universe is spatially infinite and therefore infinitely recursive. In other words, multiple versions of every possible combination of subatomic particles must exist.

Not necessarily true.

For example, take the number 1.01001000100001000001.... and so on, with the sequence of zeros between the ones longer by one digit each repetition.

This number sequence is infinite and non-repeating, but the sequences "1111" or "10101", or any of an infinite number of possible sequences never appear in it.

Again, I think the thoery of an infinite universe has more to do with infinite permutations of subatomic-particle combinations. That's why the theory includes exact doubles of you and me, along with near-exact doubles.

You're off base. The standard definition of God (as Christians would have us believe) is the creator of the universe. Why would the size of the universe affect the possibility of it's presumed creator having existed?

I think you might have found the silver bullet to my argument right there. If the idea is that god created the universe, then I can't see how the existence of an infinite universe has any bearing on the existence of the thing that supposedly created it.

Plus any God that would be generally recognized as a God would have properties that are incompatible with the laws of physics, and the probability of God existing due to chance in an infinite universe is about the same as if you drew a ball from a lotto machine containing infinite numbered balls, and got a ball with a picture of Smurfette on it instead. You can't get an outcome that's not one of the possibilities, no matter how infinite the impossibilities may be.

This argument could potentially be rebutted by the multiverse theory, but you already got me on the creator thing so it doesn't really matter.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

It made me wonder if the prospect of an infinite universe has any bearing on the probability that there exists something that would meet our standard definition of a god.

If our 'standard definition' includes creating the entire universe, being everywhere at once, and knowing everything that is or will be, then an infinite Universe makes God less likely.

If the Universe was small enough to fit in a shoebox then being God wouldn't be that hard. Even if the Universe is a trillion times bigger than what we are aware of, there is still a slim chance that some entity could be powerful enough to create and control it. But you are positing a universe which is infinitely large. No matter how big your 'God' is, He can't be bigger than Infinity, so to fill this universe He would have to spread Himself out infinitely thinly. And to be totally omniscient He must have infinite knowledge of this universe plus a bit more to know Himself!

just about everything that can exist does exist

Parallel lines may continue to infinity in both directions, but no matter how far they go they cannot get any closer or further apart. If you measure the distance between a small section of two 'parallel' lines and find that it varies then you know that - infinite or not - they are not truly parallel. An omnipresent God is everywhere by definition. But if we find that He does not exist here then we already know that He cannot exist, so there's no point looking elsewhere.

The Universe may be infinitely large, but that only makes it worse for God. Even if we found 'God' in every place we looked, there are still an infinite number places that He might not be (and therefore is not truly God). In an infinite universe you cannot prove that God exists!

 

[VanillaCone]

If our 'standard definition' includes creating the entire universe, being everywhere at once, and knowing everything that is or will be, then an infinite Universe makes God less likely.

Once again, I think this right here pretty much destroys my proposed argument. I can't conceive of a reasonable way around this problem.

 

[pakeha]

Stepping in once the party's over I only wanted to ask
Which god did you have in mind here?

I had in mind the stereotypical all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being. Isn't that the standard definition?

 

[The Norseman]

I had in mind the stereotypical all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being. Isn't that the standard definition?

No, nor is it a coherent one.

Perhaps it may make it easier to think of in this way: a universe, though existing as we understand it, existing for an infinite amount of time still doesn't allow for things to exist that violate all the laws of that universe as we understand them.

 

[Brian-M]

My understanding of the theory is that the universe is spatially infinite and therefore infinitely recursive. In other words, multiple versions of every possible combination of subatomic particles must exist.

In that case, why would it have to be every possible combination? Couldn't it just as easily be something like infinite versions of two-thirds of every possible combination?

 

[Sloth on Wheels]

If the universe is indeed infinite, and therefore holds all sorts of possibilities, then I guess that Thor, Odin, Yahweh, Allah and the lot, must be there somehow controlling their bubbles, somewhere, but it does leave the question behind: Who or what created infinity? And that's where the head explodes.

 

[VanillaCone]

No, nor is it a coherent one.

Perhaps it may make it easier to think of in this way: a universe, though existing as we understand it, existing for an infinite amount of time still doesn't allow for things to exist that violate all the laws of that universe as we understand them.

But doesn't the infinite multiverse theory propose infinitely more universes with physical laws different from our own? Perhaps one of those universes would be able to accommodate gods without violating its own laws...

 

[Sloth on Wheels]

In that case, why would it have to be every possible combination? Couldn't it just as easily be something like infinite versions of two-thirds of every possible combination?

Wouldn't that just be like, 2/3 infinite. Not saying it isn't so, or is for that matter, but it doesn't seem very infinite to me. Is all.

 

[VanillaCone]

If the universe is indeed infinite, and therefore holds all sorts of possibilities, then I guess that Thor, Odin, Yahweh, Allah and the lot, must be there somehow controlling their bubbles, somewhere, but it does leave the question behind: Who or what created infinity? And that's where the head explodes.

Good point. Although science, such as it is, doesn't offer much in the way of help along these lines any more than religion does.

 

[VanillaCone]

Wouldn't that just be like, 2/3 infinite. Not saying it isn't so, or is for that matter, but it doesn't seem very infinite to me. Is all.

Actually, I'm pretty sure a mathematician would say that 2/3 of infinity is also infinity.

 

[Sloth on Wheels]

Good point. Although science, such as it is, doesn't offer much in the way of help along these lines any more than religion does.

I don't think you can answer anything about infinity without going in circles (pun intended), as we tend to understand everything as patterns, all we can sense and compute that is. And if infinity doesn't end anywhere, as patterns do, then it's the only non-pattern I know of, and therefore the only true dead-end I know of.

Scary and slightly fascinating at the same time. I feel like a prison inmate thinking about it.

 

[Sloth on Wheels]

Actually, I'm pretty sure a mathematician would say that 2/3 of infinity is also infinity.

I think a mathematician or a taxi driver or a bartender, would slam the nose on the door right at the step of infinity, like everyone else.

 

[Aridas]

I have been reading up on the theory that the universe is infinite, and how in an infinite universe, just about everything that can exist does exist.

It made me wonder if the prospect of an infinite universe has any bearing on the probability that there exists something that would meet our standard definition of a god. I'm thinking it ups the likelihood of a god. Am I off base here?

As ehcks pointed out, define "god" first. There's a lot of potential concepts that could be used.

I had in mind the stereotypical all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being. Isn't that the standard definition?

That's a specific stereotype, popularized by a distinct and realistically speaking, recent subset of a subset of religions. And, if you want to go with that? The more that can be done, that can be seen, that can be known, the less likely that such a being actually exists. So, yes, I would say that you're quite off base for versions of "god" that could be described by that, before dealing with the rest of the ambiguities.