God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
Hi again TruthSeeker!
TruthSeeker: "...That's not quite it. He is time. And that's the piece of the puzzle which you are missing. You may also be missing others, but this is the one I can see from your posts...".
Do you mean 'God' is nothing but a metaphor for 'time'?
If the answer is 'YES', then you could be right.
But then, there should be no divine creation, no divine reward, and no divine punishment, and no religion.
TruthSeeker: "... What are the attributes of existence? What is time? What exaclty does time measure? Which variable is flowing relative to time?...".
You don't need to be that puzzled,TruthSeeker, about this thing called the essence of time. Because time is an intuitive, simple, clear-cut and self-evident truth. Even goatboys and cowboys and camelboys know exactly what time means! It's true that theologians and philosophers, now and then, pretend to be confounded by the true nature of time. But that is just their way of saying 'our theories have produced paradoxes and contradictions that cannot be resolved'. Or, in other words, the FAULT is in their theories not in the Cosmos.
TruthSeeker: "...Yes. But you have to remember that time is also relative to the observer at the same time. This will lead you to an essential paradox...
the obsever can only be relative to another observer, not relative to time or the other way around. Observers can only measure and be measured by it no more and no less.
TruthSeeker: "... that's brilliant. No, seriously, it's a very good analogy.
And it is for that reason that He is time. You have to remember that omnipresence is one of His attributes. Yes, time=God...".
I know you are not sarcastic!
But again is 'time = God' the same as 'God = time' or not?
TruthSeeker: "... Well, you have not yet defined "God"...".
We have defined Him here, there, and elsewhere.
TruthSeeker: "... Huumm.. yes, it can be perceived that way.
But you can also use the idea of God to determine what reality is and how it works".
Yes, it has been done before by Berkeley and others, but their end result is just playing with words and unconvincing.
Thank you!
Last edited:
You bet I am!AAF said:
How about proving it?
True. But you don't want to risk to dump something which is necessary.
Besides, what makes you think that the simplest solution is always the right one? Do you think calculus is simple? Do you think the universe is simple?
Well, I dare you to answer them!
Of course not! If it was, there wouldn't be so much confusion about religion!
Well, prove!
Which is? Once again, you are not discussing it. I'm asking you who is God?
A God which is omnipresent is obviously the Cosmos itself!
How can God have a human personality!?!? God is not human! That's a widespread misconception, isn't it?
Yes, and I'm asking you to lay out the attributes of what you call "god"!
Well, science wasn't desingned to answer the question "why", it was designed to answer "how".
I'm eager to hear back from you. You are obviously wise and I hope you are willing to discuss carefully the concept of god.
True...wesmorris said:
He's not that simple, I don't think...AAF said:
But that's a big part of the puzzle, which you missed...
Yes, He could be time, but I think there's a little bit more to it. For instance, I would also expect him to be space, because there's an intimate conncetion between time and space.
You canot mix human concepts with non-human ones without creating a whole lot of confusion...
The universe is too simple for us.
But yet, it is quite complex.
The nature of time is actually quite paradoxical because of its simplicity.Time is completely relative to the observer.
Well, that's not what I see. The time I experience relative to the time you experience is completely different. Those are two different times.
Yes, why not?TruthSeeker: "... that's brilliant. No, seriously, it's a very good analogy.
And it is for that reason that He is time. You have to remember that omnipresence is one of His attributes. Yes, time=God...".
I know you are not sarcastic!
But again is 'time = God' the same as 'God = time' or not?
I think we need to stop and have a clear definition.
Language is more flexible then you think. I could list all the attributes of God and use the name "goat" or sausage" on its place, and it would still be the same "God" even though the name is different!
My first language is Portuguese. For years I called God "Deus". What makes "Deus"="God"?
Well, thank you, sire!
TruthSeeker: "...How about proving it?...".
William of Occam already did that.
TruthSeeker: "...True. But you don't want to risk to dump something which is necessary. Besides, what makes you think that the simplest solution is always the right one? Do you think calculus is simple? Do you think the universe is simple?...".
Well, if you dump it, you can always retrieve it.
And it is not just 'simple', but it has to be simple in the logical sense, i.e. clear, coherent, and concise.
TruthSeeker: "...Well, I dare you to answer them!...).
To answer what? The big troublesome questions for the theists!
TruthSeeker: "...Of course not! If it was, there wouldn't be so much confusion about religion!...".
I don't disagree.
Well, you are not discussing it. So... ok. But you can't really state that you are right when you are not laying down your argument at all!
C
Confutatis
Guest
TruthSeeker said:
TS, I'm also a native Portuguese speaker, and after years of reading internet forums I have found that the English word "God" is not 100% equivalent to the Portuguese word "Deus". I am still trying to understand exactly what those English speakers mean when they talk about God, as they say stuff I have never heard before.
The funniest thing for me is when, in movies, women start shouting "oh God, oh God" while having sex. It's of course not that important, but to my ears it seems like terrible blasphemy, unless the woman does not happen to believe in God... in which case, why would she say such a thing? This case alone shows how speakers of different languages can use similar concepts in unexpected contexts. And if the word "God" is misused during sex, you can only guess how often it's misused in philosophy.
Now I'm starting to suspect even the word "religion" does not mean what I thought it did, as I'm reading the most absurd things about religion being said here. Things I never heard before, which sound meaningless rather than wrong.
It's really interesting how we are separated from other cultures by much more than distance, language and culture. We are separated, more than anything else, by philosophy.
You are just experiencing the relativity of language. Semantics is subjective, and that's why those differences are there. Here's an old thread about it...
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-42478.html
Where are you from?
http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-42478.html
Where are you from?
TruthSeeker: "...Which is? Once again, you are not discussing it. I'm asking you who is God?...".
It seems to me the reason behind your repeated request for definining God, who is well known and has been defined here countless times, is that you are seeking a definition of Him on the basis of 'how He looks like?'!
But that cannot be done, and even if it can be done, it would be useless in philosophical and theological discussions and investigations. Since, by definition, He can change his appearances at will, and you cannot take Him apart and see how He works!
God, therefore, is always defined in terms of 'what He can do':
He can think, know, create, punish, reward, ...etc..
In short, He is actions, actions, actions.
And because of that the idea of God becomes meaningless in the absense of time. Can you see that? Verbs always imply time.
Verbs also become contradictory and absurd when their scope become infinite. Infinity abhors action!
Therefore, it is always possible to prove, decisively and without a shadow of a doubt and on pure logical grounds, the absolute impossibility of God as a real possibility.
In addition, your assertion that "A God which is omnipresent is obviously the Cosmos itself" is wrong. Because only His action is everywhere, not His form.
TruthSeeker: "...How can God have a human personality!?!? God is not human! That's a widespread misconception, isn't it?...".
He is a GUY of action. He must have personality, mind, and means for doing things.
TruthSeeker: "...Yes, and I'm asking you to lay out the attributes of what you call "god"!...".
The attributes are 'VERBS'!
TruthSeeker: "...Well, science wasn't desingned to answer the question "why", it was designed to answer "how...".
Yes, but, and pay attention!
When you answer the questions of 'HOW', you answer at the same time all the questions of 'WHY', except one single 'WHY'. And that 'WHY' is the teleological 'WHY', i.e. 'for what purpose'.
That is because the teleological 'WHY' always requires intelligence, will, purposefulness, and planning. In other words, it requires legally competent persons!
Last edited:
C
Confutatis
Guest
TruthSeeker said:
Sure, but have you ever thought how the relativity of language also brings a relativity of thought? I have observed that some philosophical dilemmas can be expressed in one language but not in the other. And that is a strong sign that some dilemmas are nothing more than dilemmas of semantics.
Here is where I see the main difference between atheists and most (not all) religious people: atheists demand an objectivity of language that simply cannot be attained, whereas religious people accept that they don't have the ability to fully express their own thoughts or fully understand the thoughts of others.
"Minha terra tem palmeiras, onde canta o sabiá"
TruthSeeker: "He's not that simple, I don't think...
But that's a big part of the puzzle, which you missed...".
Do you mean the BIG PUZZLE that people of faith can't solve?
TruthSeeker: "...Yes, He could be time, but I think there's a little bit more to it. For instance, I would also expect him to be space, because there's an intimate conncetion between time and space...".
Or He could be just unrealistic fantastic mental picture of the 'superman/superwonan' that most people wish to be and look up to!
TruthSeeker: "...You canot mix human concepts with non-human ones without creating a whole lot of confusion...".
Do you mean the subjective-objective dichotomy?
It does not apply here.
TruthSeeker: "...The universe is too simple for us.
But yet, it is quite complex...".
I think it's the other way around, i.e. 'The universe is quite complex for us.
But yet, it is too simple'.
Am I right?
TruthSeeker: "...The nature of time is actually quite paradoxical because of its simplicity.Time is completely relative to the observer...".
That is probably a cliché!
And it does not stand up against close analysis.
Moreover, if you are relying on Relativity for making it, then your statement that 'Time is completely relative to the observer' is totally false.
Because, Einstein (its originator) didn't even accept relitivity of things with respect to SPACE, let alone their relativity to TIME.
Remember, if it is relativity, then it must be relativity both ways.
That is to say statements like 'time is relative to the observer' must be true the other way around, i.e. 'the observer moves relative to time'!
TruthSeeker: "...Well, that's not what I see. The time I experience relative to the time you experience is completely different. Those are two different times...".
Again, you have to be very careful.
Measurements could be different, but not relative or something that you can use as a reference frame for performing future measurements.
TruthSeeker: "...Yes, why not? I think we need to stop and have a clear definition...".
Good suggestion!
I agree.
TruthSeeker: "...Language is more flexible then you think. I could list all the attributes of God and use the name "goat" or sausage" on its place, and it would still be the same "God" even though the name is different! My first language is Portuguese. For years I called God "Deus". What makes "Deus"="God"?...".
Well, Well...
So you are a virtual 'grandson' of Ferdinand Magellan.
And that is why you're asking too many questions!
Have you seen the CLOUDS that Fernao de Magalhaes
had left for you?
http://www.astr.ua.edu/gifimages/lmc_smc.html
As for your question 'What makes "Deus"="God?',
That is, of course, very obvious, and it should not perplex a bilingual speaker like yourself. Ideas are always independent of language
And so because both societies (the Portuguese & the English) have the same religious background, 'Deus' has exactly the same meaning as 'God'.
However, 'God' is more logical, because it consumes less alphabet.
And 'Deus' is more poetic, because of its Latin origin.
But that difference between those two words does not affect their basic meaning in any way.
Thank you once again.
Last edited:
What? So you would include physicality as an attribute of God?AAF said:
I certainly don't.
Who cares how He looks like? If He does, that is.
Yes, many times. But there's certainly much more to Him.
No. Those are human definitions of actions. Why would an all-powerful God act and think like man?
Can God think?
Yes, verbs always imply time. But that's not what God is!
What is infinity? What is finity, for that matter?
Maybe a God with the attributes you describe, yes.
Why only His action is everywhere. How can your action be somewhere but not you? Does that make any sense?
Why? Because everyone else thinks that way?
A verb is not an attribute. A verb only defines a change.
Why do I exist? Why do I have consciousness? Why was I born here? Why things happen the way they happen? Why there are so many coincidences? Why does the universe exist? Why it works this way? Why do we ask so many questions?
Yes, and I have discussed that before...Confutatis said:
Well, I never thought of it that way, but I certainly agree.
Mine too.
No. The puzzle of Truth.AAF said:
You are not thinking about it. You have to forget religion. God was thought about before there was religion.
The subjective-objective dichotomy applies everywhere. You are being subjective right now. Me too.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said.
Yes. I got confused there...
Too much mind bending...
No, it's not. This is something completely different. It makes time absolute through its relativeness.AAF said:
Let's see your analysis.
I'm not talking about Relativity at all.
Einstein didn't discover God.
Yes, that is accurate.
How many points are there in a line?
Well, I've been asking what you think! So go ahead!
Eh? What does that have to do with this conversation?
Who is God?
Not in a million years!
See? That's already one difference.
Really? So if you hadn't heard the poetic version your entire life you wouldn't find it any more poetic then the other version?
AAF said:
Simply stated, Ockham’s Razor is this: "Get rid of redundant entities".
God is a redundant entity. Because it's much simpler to assume that the world is eternal. The hypothesis of Creator explains nothing. It simply pushes the PROBLEM one floor upstairs! It's futile and redundant.
Can God create Himself?
He must. Because God is not just any creator. God, by definition, is an Absolute Creator. The Absolute Creator, who cannot create Himself, is a contradiction in terms.
But that presents at once a thorny and unresolvable dilemma.
Whether God can or cannot create Himself, a believer must land himself upon one of the two horns of this DILEMMA:
God can create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, NOTHINGNESS is greater than Him.
Or God cannot create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, He is not absolute. He is relative, weak, and completely redundant.
In short, the idea of God is self-contradictory, and logically unfounded. Accordingly, it's false. To do away with it, its self-contradiction is enough. No further disproof is required.
So why do people claim from time to time that 'God' cannot be proved or disproved scientifically?
The only explanation of such an obvious fallacy is that 'Homo sapiens' by nature is a social animal and always ready to do anything to please inmates and get along with them even on the expense of reason and logic.
The last refuge for the folks of faith to save their 'Eternal God' from the ravages of logic and reason is to suppose that either He is timeless or He is living outside time all by Himself!
Nice try! But it doesn't help them at all. To say that God is outside of time is logically equivalent to and the same as saying that He does not exist.
moreover, getting rid of time is absolutely impossible. And even when you deny time in words, you affirm it logically in a big way. The reason for this absolute impossibility is that the flow of time forms a homogeneous continuum of all rates from the infinitely small to the infinitely large all at once. And each rate of time flow implies the rest as a necessary consequence.
Take as an example the ordinary pendulum clock!
It has three hands that run at different rates.
These three hands of the clock are only a partial snapshot of the actual flow of time.
The second hand implies on its side an infinite series of hands that run at faster and faster rates until end up with the moment hand where the rate of time flow is infinite.
The hour hand of the clock, also, implies, on its side, an infinite series of hands which run at slower and slower rates and have as their limit the eternity hand which does not move at all.
Thus there is no escape from time. And life of God outside time is meaningless.
In fact, time is an essential attribute of God.
No time; no God, but the reverse is not true.
That is to say that there is always time whether there is God or not.
Finally, we should not forget that 'God' is, also, an ideal. In other words, the idea of 'God' is the model and the blueprint according to which you would certainly construct yourself, if you were given the power to re-design and build yourself from scratch. In this sense, even though God has no basis in reality, as an ideal is absolutely perfect and useful and you should keep Him as a guiding star and blueprint for impoving yourself at all levels.
You might as well say "can God make blue light shine red?"
Blue light by definition is "blue" regardless of whether God is involved or not. I God shines it and it looks red, then the light is obviously "red". But, of course, the perception of color is just one of the many tricks of the brain. So, in reality, when God "shines a light", it has no color in specific- altough it can be perceived as having color in a subjective manner.
- Status