God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.

[(Q)]

The ongoing failed premise in this thread is overwhelmingly funny. Almost.

Except of course we know the world - universe - all of creation - is not eternal. The premise fails right there.

God doesn't exist. AAF has decided God doesn't exist.

Yet, Archie has decided a god does in fact exist. It is a major stretch of the imagination one can come to such a conclusion. So, it begs the questions:

Did Archie meet a god?

Did Archie even see or hear a god?

What could have made a perfectly rational individual like Archie believe in the invisible?

Deophobes would be funny if they weren't tragic.

Theists aren't funny at all, they're just tragic.

 

[geeser]

God doesn't exist. AAF has decided God doesn't exist. Deophobes would be funny if they weren't tragic.

who are you refering to when you say deophobe, (christians or atheists) you must first believe something exists to have a fear of it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

Would it make god more credible, if Einstein believed in him?

Yes...on certain levels.

The opinion of a mortal, makes the existence of a god more likely?

Of course not. But someone like Einstein believing in God, can make one more thoughtful about God. The internet is rife with atheists doing their utmost best to convince others that Einstein did not believe in God, when it is absolutely clear that he did. So why do they persist in this "Emporers new clothes" type illusion if not to add weight and credibility to their position?

It works both ways.

Anyway, wouldn't Einstein have been referring to the Jewish god, saviour of the chosen people, when he said 'god does not play dice'?

Why do you think this?

But anyway, Einstein himself said;

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

I myself do not believe in a "personal god", a god fashioned in man's image, A god which punishes and rewards according to its whims. That is a misconception of God. But I do believe in God. So what do you make of that?

Again Jan, you are incapable of understanding what is written clearly in black and white. You are fated to lose every relgious debate because of this!

Again you are desparate to show God does not exist (despite your poor fund of knowledge), and all who 'believes' He does are lesser and deluded in your eyes. You are no different to a religious fanatic IMO.

Jan was using an 'appeal to authority' argument, claiming that Einstein believed in god. This was implying that Einstein believed in HER god, and further implying that this validated her religion.

No I wasn't.
I was responding to Q's statement in which he referred to usp8riot as a "religious nutter", accusing him of trying to use "science" to make a point, when infact the point he made was relevant to the discussion.

It is true that atheists like yourself (and Q) are "anti-God" and cannot tolerate any scientific or rational explanation which may lead one to understand God a little more.

Jan.

 

[phlogistician]

“ Would it make god more credible, if Einstein believed in him? ”

Yes...on certain levels.

God either exists, or doesn't. The opinion of one mortal doesn't affect that, no matter who they are. Only a fool would believe in god because somebody else does. But I guess that's why believers are referred to as 'sheep'.

“ The opinion of a mortal, makes the existence of a god more likely? ”

Of course not. But someone like Einstein believing in God, can make one more thoughtful about God.

Except of course, Einstein didn't believe in god. So, does the converse hold ;-)

The internet is rife with atheists doing their utmost best to convince others that Einstein did not believe in God, when it is absolutely clear that he did.

Published are Einsteins own words on the very subject, showing that he did not believe. What have you got to contradict his own words? Some disposable references to 'God' when he was talking about the ramafications of quantum mechanics? Like I said earlier, I sometimes shout 'Shit!', 'Fuck!', or 'God!' when in pain. Doesn't mean that I believe in them as deities!

“ Anyway, wouldn't Einstein have been referring to the Jewish god, saviour of the chosen people, when he said 'god does not play dice'? ”

Why do you think this?

Because he was born to Jewish parents? Because Nationalists began denouncing him as a Jew when he was working in Germany? But that is not the point, really, the point that you assume a reference to 'God' equates to a reference to your god, and that is not necessarily the case. You have to admit the possibility that he was referring to YHWH, or Allah, or that actually, it was a disposable reference.

Again you are desparate to show God does not exist (despite your poor fund of knowledge), and all who 'believes' He does are lesser and deluded in your eyes. You are no different to a religious fanatic IMO.

I am an atheist, Jan, not an Antitheist. I am not going to waste my time trying to disprove god's existence, but rather, spend time illustrating the folly of those that do believe. There is a difference, but obviously, you aren't clever enough to see the distinction. I have a 'poor fund of knowledge' do I Jan? All you have is the bible, which is flawed and self contradictory. I can rely on real science, and there is far, far more of that published!

It is true that atheists like yourself (and Q) are "anti-God" and cannot tolerate any scientific or rational explanation which may lead one to understand God a little more.

It is not true that I am anti-god, Jan. I could tolerate scientific or rational explanations for God, if any were presented, but they never have been. I have been served up illogic, fallacy, and pseudo science by people blinded with faith, but never actually anything that stands scrutiny.

If you have something that will, please share it.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I beleive in 'God' and more besides, not based on anything taught (my views are not conventional) I am not religious and My view did come about through experience, personal hence cannot stand up to scrutiny. Scientific argument can no more tell me my observations were not real than can persuade me my name is not what it is. Scientific argument can assist me in examining my conclusions of those observations. However there are no satisfactory conclusions to explain certain phenomena and apparant 'interference' in my life, so I will believe that science in this regard is limited and with reason. We are mroe than capable of designing robots and implanting within them an incapacity to ever 'know' the existance of ourselves, it is quite possible this is the case with us and God, we were designed with an incapacity to ever determine through any means the real source of our origins. Science has not successfully PROVED the source of creation, big bang is a theory, what before the big bang? Blah blah. That argument can go on for ever.

Anyway enjoy your argument.

Meanwhile I would like to seperate any arguments about the existance of a 'God' from religion, there is no point getting into religious debate, religions were designed by men and mainly satisfy their own needs or societies needs at the time they were founded.

Can we not eliminate all references to religious Gods and get onto what God outside of religion may be?

Or is it too difficult for some to separate the idea of a 'God' without religion, perhaps give 'God ' a different name? 'The Scientist'?

 

[phlogistician]

Or is it too difficult for some to separate the idea of a 'God' without religion, perhaps give 'God ' a different name? 'The Scientist'?

What does changing a label achieve, exactly? It's still the same unproveable myth underneath.

AlsoI find your choice of the alternative 'The Scientist of concern, as Science is about proof, and so far, all the data is leading towards a proof of the 'big bang', not some sky pixie.

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

God either exists, or doesn't.
The opinion of one mortal doesn't affect that, no matter who they are.

I didn't say it does.
Please read carefully.
I said it could make God more credible, from a mortals point of view.

Except of course, Einstein didn't believe in god. So, does the converse hold

Don't be silly.
You know he believed in what would be termed "God", "spirit", or some reference to an intelligence behind the cosmos.
Stop being an arse.

Published are Einsteins own words on the very subject, showing that he did not believe.

Earlier,

But anyway, Einstein himself said;

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." ”

I myself do not believe in a "personal god", a god fashioned in man's image, A god which punishes and rewards according to its whims. That is a misconception of God. But I do believe in God. So what do you make of that?

Please answer this question.

Because he was born to Jewish parents?

So what?

.... the point that you assume a reference to 'God' equates to a reference to your god, and that is not necessarily the case.

That is how YOU understand it to mean. As I said, you have a poor fund of knowledge regarding God, and spirituality in general. There is only one God. The people who refer only to Allah, or Yahweh etc, as the only true God, and disregard all other names and scriptures as nonsense, or demonic, are IMO opinion no different than you in attitude. Not one of them can constuct a desent argument to defend their position without personal attacks.

You are the same type of people....different subject....that's all.

You have to admit the possibility that he was referring to YHWH, or Allah, or that actually, it was a disposable reference.

Yahweh is the one God, so is Allah, so is Vishnu. The names present different aspects of Him. This knowledge is not a mystery, nor is it hidden. The Jews may have taken YHWH as "their" god, but that doesn't mean He is "their" god. It is a misunderstanding. Jesus going into the temple and disrupting the fools pastime, is a perfect example of what I am saying.

I am an atheist, Jan, not an Antitheist.

An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, not someone who cries "fools" to people who view life differently.

I am not going to waste my time trying to disprove god's existence, but rather, spend time illustrating the folly of those that do believe.

You are completely incapable of both acts, as you do not have any real knowledge of God. Your a mouthpiece for the latest installment of institutionalised religion. A Godless religion.
I'm sorry if this offends you, but I regard what you say as trend or fashion.

There is a difference, but obviously, you aren't clever enough to see the distinction.

Then spell it out.

I have a 'poor fund of knowledge' do I Jan? All you have is the bible, which is flawed and self contradictory. I can rely on real science, and there is far, far more of that published!

This is a childish statement.
You are like a child.

It is not true that I am anti-god, Jan.

Then your acting is very good.

I could tolerate scientific or rational explanations for God, if any were presented, but they never have been.

I believe you are lieing in an effort to render the whole idea of God as having no basis in reality.
Surprise! Surprise!
usp8riot's point (the point in question) was a good point to make IMO.
Sod what you think.

I have been served up illogic, fallacy, and pseudo science by people blinded with faith, but never actually anything that stands scrutiny.

Most probably because your standard of understanding is very low due to your irrational anti-God stance.

If you have something that will, please share it.

Of course you want me to accept your understanding of God (natural), then show him to you.
Fraid thats not gonna happen.

Jan.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

What does changing a label achieve, exactly? It's still the same unproveable myth underneath.

AlsoI find your choice of the alternative 'The Scientist of concern, as Science is about proof, and so far, all the data is leading towards a proof of the 'big bang', not some sky pixie.

lol, changing the name may help people like you stop viewing the concept of a 'god' as sky pixie for starters. With or without realising it, all your 'God' views are clouded by religious representations of what 'God' could be or represent.

Why does the term scientist concern you? We are not a million miles away from creating life ourselves, no doubt we'll view our little creations from a lab, interfere in their lives from time to time, manipulate their environment for the purposes of further study, and be busy with our own things out of hours. Could 'God' not be a scientist from a future place in time, or another place altogether, working with others on project Earth?

If we can do it, pretty sure someone else could have.

 

[phlogistician]

Jan, you are a blinkered xtian who cannot grasp that other faiths have other gods, and that they aren't all facets of YOUR god.

Einstein did not believe in YOUR god, do you not understand that? He was not supporting YOUR belief.

Anyway, you're fun for a while jan, but the dogma and rhetoric get tiresome after a while. It's like talking to a record of some Televangelist, talking to you. I'm not actually talking to you, just talking at the stuff you've been programmed with.

We are both atheists Jan, it's just I lack belief in one more god than you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

Jan, you are a blinkered xtian who cannot grasp that other faiths have other gods, and that they aren't all facets of YOUR god.

Like so many aspects of your world view, you are wrong on all counts.

Einstein did not believe in YOUR god, do you not understand that? He was not supporting YOUR belief.

Who said he did or was?
Better switch the light on so you can read what is written.

Anyway, you're fun for a while jan, but the dogma and rhetoric get tiresome after a while.

Translation: I haven't got anything to say so I'm going to badger a fundamentalist if I can find one, because they are more on my level.

It's like talking to a record of some Televangelist, talking to you. I'm not actually talking to you, just talking at the stuff you've been programmed with.

Just place your hands on the screen, and I will heel your demonic ways.

We are both atheists Jan, it's just I lack belief in one more god than you.

No.
You're an atheist because you cannot understand through your human intelligence that there is more to life than what you can sense. I am not an atheist.
You're anti-God because you have proved time and time again that you are unwilling to understand what and who is God, while at the same time claiming God does not exist, under the guise of I don't believe God exists because I see no evidence of His existence.

The quote says "...one more god than....".
Who is the god?

Jan.

 

[phlogistician]

I said; "Einstein did not believe in YOUR god, do you not understand that? He was not supporting YOUR belief."

Who said he did or was?

and you also said;

What you can't stand, is the fact that Einstein, one of (if not the) greatest scientists of all time, believed in God.

So YOU said that Einstein believed in 'God', as if this validated your religion. But Einstein did not believe in your god.

Better switch the light on so you can read what is written.

At lease, unlike you, I can remember what I have written.

Translation: I haven't got anything to say so I'm going to badger a fundamentalist if I can find one, because they are more on my level.

So you admit you're a fundamentalist? Sent that purveyor of love and tolerance Fred Phelps any money ever? Anyone like him? He's a fundie, and hypocrite.

You're an atheist because you cannot understand through your human intelligence that there is more to life than what you can sense.

Now that is a stupid sentence. I'll let you mull over it.

You're anti-God because you have proved time and time again that you are unwilling to understand what and who is God,

God could come and tell me if he cared. Others have had revelations apparently, so why not me?

while at the same time claiming God does not exist,

Have I said that ever?

under the guise of I don't believe God exists because I see no evidence of His existence.

I have seen no evidence, but apparently neither have you.

The quote says "...one more god than....".

So you are aware of the quote! Excellent, so you agree you are an atheist then, Jan, despite your protestations.

Who is the god?

Ganesh? Loki? Shiva? Thor? Zeus? Mars? Apollo? Pick one! I don't believe in any of them, and neither do you, making you an atheist, Jan.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Ganesh? Loki? Shiva? Thor? Zeus? Mars? Apollo? Pick one! I don't believe in any of them, and neither do you, making you an atheist, Jan.

You are wrong about this Phlo, athiests do not have a belief in the existance of a 'god', this individual does, believing in one and not in the rest is irrelevant, you only have to believe in one to not be athiest.

Else eveyone would be athiest?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I said; "Einstein did not believe in YOUR god, do you not understand that? He was not supporting YOUR belief."



and you also said;



So YOU said that Einstein believed in 'God', as if this validated your religion. But Einstein did not believe in your god.



At lease, unlike you, I can remember what I have written.



So you admit you're a fundamentalist? Sent that purveyor of love and tolerance Fred Phelps any money ever? Anyone like him? He's a fundie, and hypocrite.



Now that is a stupid sentence. I'll let you mull over it.



God could come and tell me if he cared. Others have had revelations apparently, so why not me?



Have I said that ever?



I have seen no evidence, but apparently neither have you.



So you are aware of the quote! Excellent, so you agree you are an atheist then, Jan, despite your protestations.



Ganesh? Loki? Shiva? Thor? Zeus? Mars? Apollo? Pick one! I don't believe in any of them, and neither do you, making you an atheist, Jan.

I'm happy that you are being light-hearted.
Hope I have not offended you in any way on a personal level.

Jan.

 

[AAF]

wesmorris: "But all of your arguments must necessarily be no more than speculation...then you project it onto your environment...Perfectly natural of course, but I am not subject to your conjecture excepting if you force it upon me...You said "this is the end times".LOL...".



Hi wesmorris:

The time shall come, when eyes shed no tears.
And criers cry no more.
But unlucky mortals shall not see the truth.
Because, behold!
Their eyes are filled with tears when they are awake; and with dust when they go to rest!
http://samuel-beckett.net/Waiting_for_Godot_Part1.html

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hapsburg,

If you cannot imagine the size of an ocean, you have a severe mental disability and/or the mind of a five-year old child.

What does "the size" of an ocean look like?

Jan.

 

[AAF]

Archie: "The ongoing failed premise in this thread is overwhelmingly funny. Almost.Except of course we know the world - universe - all of creation - is not eternal. The premise fails right there.God doesn't exist. AAF has decided God doesn't exist. Deophobes would be funny if they weren't tragic".




Remember,Archie!
It's your BIG DILEMMA:

[1]If the Universe is eternal,
you must land yourself on the RAZOR. And
therefore, your 'Eternal God' is redundant and un-necessay.

[2]And if the Universe has a beginning,
you,Archie, are beaten to the ground (a knockout)
by the INFINITE-PAST PARADOX.

Poor Archie!
There is no way out for him!

 

[AAF]

Jan Ardena: "...I am not familiar with this "hypothesis" or its functions, and you accuse me falsely. Can you shed light on this hypothesis, and how it came to be?...This is a perfect example of your tactics, and lack of understanding, of who and what God is, regardless of belief. You fail to acknowledge Gods greatness, even as a fictional character, but feel no way about portraying Him as a bad person. As such your biased attitudes creates a closed-minded attitude".



You are not familiar with it!

Are you kidding, or kidding, or kidding?

Look Jan!
God was, is, and will be a hypothesis.
As a matter of fact, the hypothesis of God is a useful one for the masses.
Because it answers their very few questions and saves them a lot of time and headache.

You claim I portayed Him as a 'bad person'!
That is false and a perfect example of your tactics, and lack of understanding of what the FUSS is all about.

Don't do it again!
It's useless.

:m:

 

[AAF]

Hapsburg,



What does "the size" of an ocean look like?

Jan.

:m:

It looks like an OCEAN (Atlantic, Indian, or Pacific)!
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/ocean/

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Jan, you are a blinkered xtian who cannot grasp that other faiths have other gods, and that they aren't all facets of YOUR god.

Einstein did not believe in YOUR god, do you not understand that? He was not supporting YOUR belief.

Anyway, you're fun for a while jan, but the dogma and rhetoric get tiresome after a while. It's like talking to a record of some Televangelist, talking to you. I'm not actually talking to you, just talking at the stuff you've been programmed with.

We are both atheists Jan, it's just I lack belief in one more god than you.

There's two questions here.
1) Is there a spiritual dimension to existence?
2) What form does that take?

Where all theists (I include Buddhists) such as Jan, myself and Einstein agree is in saying yes to (1). This differentiates us from most atheists who say no - the universe is founded on materialistic principles, and all "spiritual" concepts and experiences are inventions or can be rationalised to naturalistic explanations.

What form that "spiritual dimension" takes is subject to further debate. Einstein rejected most orthodox concepts of a personal God. This is much more like the Neo-Platonist or Plotinian view of God (The One), but well within classical theism.

 

[AAF]

Diogenes' Dog: "...Where all theists (I include Buddhists) such as Jan, myself and Einstein agree is in saying yes to (1). This differentiates us from most atheists who say no...Einstein rejected most orthodox concepts of a personal God. This is much more like the Neo-Platonist or Plotinian view of God (The One), but well within classical theism".



So, D.D., you have brought one of the 'chosen people' to help you solve the difficult problems! In particular, the problem of who created God, or as one of our friends around here put it, whether or not God has God. And if so, does that make the God of the holy scriputures an atheist?

Well, Diogenes' Dog, I have news for you.

Here is my 'chosen one' who is firmly and unequivocally on our side:
http://www.adolphus.nl/xcrpts/xcfreudill.html