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

[AAF]

TruthSeeker: "What? So you would include physicality
as an attribute of God? I certainly don't.
Who cares how He looks like? If He does, that is...".

I didn't include it.
You're the one who believe that God & His 'Universe' are the same thing!

And who cares how he looks like?
Mystics and artists, my friend, care about it very much.


TruthSeeker: "...Yes, many times. But there's certainly
much more to Him...".

There is nothing, as Einstein used to say, more to it!


TruthSeeker: "...No. Those are human definitions of actions.
Why would an all-powerful God act and think like man?...".

And what are the non-human definitions of actions?
God, therefore, must think like man,
but on a grand scale and infinitely so.


TruthSeeker: "...Can God think?...".

Of course, He can think. He is not stupid!


TruthSeeker: "...Yes, verbs always imply time.
But that's not what God is!...".

That is what you think it is NOT.
But it is, and there is nothing more to it!

TruthSeeker: "...What is infinity? What is finity, for that matter?...".

That is very simple. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

TruthSeeker: "...Maybe a God with the attributes you describe, yes...".

That is the only 'God' in theology.


TruthSeeker: "...Why only His action is everywhere. How can your action be somewhere but not you? Does that make any sense?...".

What is the problem with that?
It makes much more sense than being in person everywhere and leaving no place or space for anything else.


TruthSeeker: "...Why? Because everyone else thinks that way?...".

That is one of the main reasons.


TruthSeeker: "...A verb is not an attribute.
A verb only defines a change...".

What about 'ADJECTIVES' based on them (verbs)?


TruthSeeker: "...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?...".

If those questions really do matter to you, and you have the stamina and the deremination to investigate them, then this is your mentor:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm

Start with his 'Cogito' and four laws:

1. 'To accept nothing as true that is not recognized by the reason as clear and distinct;
2. To analyze complex ideas by breaking them down into their simple constitutive elements, which reason can intuitively apprehend;
3. To reconstruct, beginning with simple ideas and working synthetically to the complex;
4. To make an accurate and complete enumeration of the data of the problem, using in this step both the methods of induction and deduction'. http://radicalacademy.com/phildescartes1.htm#god

 

[AAF]

TruthSeeker: "No. The puzzle of Truth...".

Why should TRUTH be puzzling?
It is supposed to be enlightening and informing.


TruthSeeker: "...You are not thinking about it. You have to forget religion. God was thought about before there was religion...".

How do you know that was the case?
As a matter of fact the monotheist's 'GOD' was thought about many centuries after the invention of religion.


TruthSeeker: "...The subjective-objective dichotomy applies everywhere. You are being subjective right now. Me too...".

No! It applies only to physical phenomena where there are subjective attributes like colour, taste, smell,...etc., and objective attributes like length, mass, rate,...etc..

It does not apply to logic and mathematics.


TruthSeeker: "...No, that's not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said...".

This is what you said: "You canot mix human concepts with non-human ones without creating a whole lot of confusion".

Now if that is not the 'DICHOTOMY', then what are the 'non-human concepts' in this context?

 

[TruthSeeker]

TruthSeeker: "What? So you would include physicality
as an attribute of God? I certainly don't.
Who cares how He looks like? If He does, that is...".

I didn't include it.
You're the one who believe that God & His 'Universe' are the same thing!

Yes, of course there is "physicality" in God, because the universe is physical. But God doesn't look like a man, like a lot of people believe. And He is not solid either.

Mystics and artists, my friend, care about it very much.

Not all mystics do.

TruthSeeker: "...Yes, many times. But there's certainly
much more to Him...".

There is nothing, as Einstein used to say, more to it!

SO? Did Einstein know God?

TruthSeeker: "...No. Those are human definitions of actions.
Why would an all-powerful God act and think like man?...".

And what are the non-human definitions of actions?
God, therefore, must think like man,
but on a grand scale and infinitely so.

God doesn't need anything. What would motivate Him to "act'?
No, He can't act like a man simply because He is not a man!

TruthSeeker: "...Can God think?...".

Of course, He can think. He is not stupid!

He doesn't have a brain. How does He think?
What does He think about?

TruthSeeker: "...Yes, verbs always imply time.
But that's not what God is!...".

That is what you think it is NOT.
But it is, and there is nothing more to it!

Time does not require verbs.
You are thinking something in terms of time=verbs, but it only work one way, not both ways.

TruthSeeker: "...What is infinity? What is finity, for that matter?...".

That is very simple. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Regular definition doen'st cut it. I want to know what you think.
How about Zeno's Paradox, for instance?

TruthSeeker: "...Maybe a God with the attributes you describe, yes...".

That is the only 'God' in theology.

Maybe that's what most people believe, yes.

TruthSeeker: "...Why only His action is everywhere. How can your action be somewhere but not you? Does that make any sense?...".

What is the problem with that?
It makes much more sense than being in person everywhere and leaving no place or space for anything else.

What is not God?

TruthSeeker: "...Why? Because everyone else thinks that way?...".

That is one of the main reasons.

Who cares what people think? You can think whatever you want!

TruthSeeker: "...A verb is not an attribute.
A verb only defines a change...".

What about 'ADJECTIVES' based on them (verbs)?

Yes, they define attributes. But that's a different story, isn't?

TruthSeeker: "...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?...".

If those questions really do matter to you, and you have the stamina and the deremination to investigate them, then this is your mentor:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/descarte.htm

Not really. I studied what he said and I plain don't agree. He doesn't answer those questions anyways.

Start with his 'Cogito' and four laws:

1. 'To accept nothing as true that is not recognized by the reason as clear and distinct;
2. To analyze complex ideas by breaking them down into their simple constitutive elements, which reason can intuitively apprehend;
3. To reconstruct, beginning with simple ideas and working synthetically to the complex;
4. To make an accurate and complete enumeration of the data of the problem, using in this step both the methods of induction and deduction'. http://radicalacademy.com/phildescartes1.htm#god

So? I've been doing this for 10 years. I'm still not satisfied with the answers I got...

 

[TruthSeeker]

TruthSeeker: "No. The puzzle of Truth...".

Why should TRUTH be puzzling?
It is supposed to be enlightening and informing.

Truth itself is not puzzling (absurd, but not necessarily puzzling).
If you know the truth, yes it is enlightening and informing, but not when you are searching for it.

TruthSeeker: "...You are not thinking about it. You have to forget religion. God was thought about before there was religion...".

How do you know that was the case?
As a matter of fact the monotheist's 'GOD' was thought about many centuries after the invention of religion.

The idea of God was thought about before there was an organized religion. For example, Christianism. Jesus talked about God. Then some guys got together and created a religion which we call Christianity.

TruthSeeker: "...The subjective-objective dichotomy applies everywhere. You are being subjective right now. Me too...".

No! It applies only to physical phenomena where there are subjective attributes like colour, taste, smell,...etc., and objective attributes like length, mass, rate,...etc..

It applies to everything. You are always observing the world.

It does not apply to logic and mathematics.

Of course it does! You are using those things. It's inevitable!

TruthSeeker: "...No, that's not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said...".

This is what you said: "You canot mix human concepts with non-human ones without creating a whole lot of confusion".

Now if that is not the 'DICHOTOMY', then what are the 'non-human concepts' in this context?

You cannot use human attributes to describe something which is not human. I.e. God.

 

[AAF]

TruthSeeker: "No, it's not. This is something completely different. It makes time absolute through its relativeness. Let's see your analysis...".

Time can never be absolute that way.
It's absolute only when it is the same everywhere.


TruthSeeker: "...I'm not talking about Relativity at all...".

On what theory, then, did you base the assertion
'time absolute through its relativeness'?


TruthSeeker: "...Einstein didn't discover God?...".

So what?


TruthSeeker: "...How many points are there in a line?...".

That depends on your definition of 'what and how big the point is'.
The smaller its size is; the greater the number.

TruthSeeker: "...Eh? What does that have to do
with this conversation?...".

It has something to do with the GENE or the GENIE of exploration!

TruthSeeker: "...Who is God?...".

He is the Creator who cannot create Himself!


TruthSeeker: "...Not in a million years!...See?
That's already one difference...".

Are you saying the 'English' are heretics?


TruthSeeker: "...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?".

Yes, really!
You can reach that conclusion by simply counting the vowels and the soft characters in both words.

 

[AAF]

TruthSeeker: "Yes, of course there is "physicality" in God, because the universe is physical. But God doesn't look like a man, like a lot of people believe. And He is not solid either...".

You never know!
He could look like a man and solid too.

TruthSeeker: "...Not all mystics do...".

That would be the exception, which proves the rule.


TruthSeeker: "...SO? Did Einstein know God?...".

Very likely!
He more often was talking about the 'Old One', 'Mind of God' and the like. Presumably, he meant by such phrases the God 'Yahweh'.


TruthSeeker: "...God doesn't need anything. What would motivate Him to "act'?...No, He can't act like a man simply because He is not a man!...".

What prevents Him of being a man?
There is no obvious reason for God to look down on man.
And certainly there is nothing wrong with being a man.


TruthSeeker: "...He doesn't have a brain. How does He think?
What does He think about?...".

Perhaps!
But He must have mind.


TruthSeeker: "...Time does not require verbs.You are thinking something in terms of time=verbs, but it only work one way, not both ways...".

But verbs require time.
And time implies all conceivable verbs (actions) as potentiality.

TruthSeeker: "...Regular definition doen'st cut it.
I want to know what you think...".

You have to demonstrate first why a 'regular definition doesn't cut it'.
You can't just go around throwing assertions all over the place,
and expect that will lead you to finding out the truth.
You have to be serious and optimistic about your research.


TruthSeeker: "...How about Zeno's Paradox, for instance?...".

What about it?


TruthSeeker: "...Who cares what people think? You can think whatever you want!...".

Well, at least, you need to understand what they are saying,
in order for you to communicate with them effectively.


TruthSeeker: "...Not really. I studied what he said and I plainly don't agree. He doesn't answer those questions anyways...".

Sorry it turned out that way!
He was a very wise French.


TruthSeeker: "...So? I've been doing this for 10 years. I'm still not satisfied with the answers I got...".

I think that is not enough.
Asking questions is only the first step.
To get satisfied, you have to do the rest (your homework) yourself.

 

[AAF]

You might as well say "can God make blue light shine red?"

That is not big deal for Him!

He can very easily make 'blue light shine red'.

By simply switching the colour receptors (the cones) in the retina,
even a village's doctor can, in principle, make you feel the sensation of red (i.e. see) when the light is blue (475 nm), and the sensation of blue when light is red (680 nm).

 

[AAF]

TruthSeeker: "Truth itself is not puzzling (absurd, but not necessarily puzzling). If you know the truth, yes it is enlightening and informing, but not when you are searching for it...".

Good!

But sometimes, searching for the truth is
more satisfying than finding it.

And that is the reason why research scientists
are horrified when they hear such dire predictions
like the 'end of science', the 'end of physics',
the 'last decimal', and the 'final theory'.


TruthSeeker: "...The idea of God was thought about before there was an organized religion. For example, Christianism. Jesus talked about God. Then some guys got together and created a religion which we call Christianity...".

That is not exactly true.

Historically, the idea of the 'one all-powerful God'
was introduced for the first time by the Ancient
Egyptian Pharaoh, Akhenaten around 1336 BC.



TruthSeeker: "...It applies to everything. You are always observing the world. Of course it does! You are using those things. It's inevitable!...".

Not really!

Observing the world is only one single process of many.

And of course, numbers, logical relations...etc.,
have no subjective attributes to be sensed and felt
by special organs in the human body.


TruthSeeker: "...You cannot use human attributes to describe something which is not human. I.e. God".

Why the prohibition?
You can't justify that.

Besides, verbs and actions and adjectives based
on them are attributes of doers, whether they
are humans or not.

 

[TruthSeeker]

My God... this is going to take a while...

TruthSeeker: "No, it's not. This is something completely different. It makes time absolute through its relativeness. Let's see your analysis...".

Time can never be absolute that way.
It's absolute only when it is the same everywhere.

When is time the same everywhere? Take for instance new years eve. It's 2:00pm in north america, but in china, they already had all the commemorations and they are now sleeping. Which time is the "right" one?

Now, take two people side by side. One of them is 2 weeks old. The other is 99 years old. What is time?

If it helps you, draw a timeline of their lives.

TruthSeeker: "...I'm not talking about Relativity at all...".

On what theory, then, did you base the assertion
'time absolute through its relativeness'?

What does thaty have to do with Relativity? Relativity describes gravity. I'm not talking about gravity.

TruthSeeker: "...Einstein didn't discover God?...".

So what?

We are discussing God. So Einstein's theory is irrelevant here. Unless you see a connection. Then we can discuss it.

TruthSeeker: "...How many points are there in a line?...".

That depends on your definition of 'what and how big the point is'.
The smaller its size is; the greater the number.

Good! So how big is God?

TruthSeeker: "...Eh? What does that have to do
with this conversation?...".

It has something to do with the GENE or the GENIE of exploration!

Please, explain further.

TruthSeeker: "...Who is God?...".

He is the Creator who cannot create Himself!

I would like to point out that when I ask a question, I'm asking the question relative to what I'm saying or to what you have said...

So. Why cannot God create Himself? Please show me your premises and conclusion.

TruthSeeker: "...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?".

Yes, really!
You can reach that conclusion by simply counting the vowels and the soft characters in both words.

Sorry. I lost my train of thought.....

 

[TruthSeeker]

TruthSeeker: "Yes, of course there is "physicality" in God, because the universe is physical. But God doesn't look like a man, like a lot of people believe. And He is not solid either...".

You never know!
He could look like a man and solid too.

How is that possible if He is everywhere?

TruthSeeker: "...Not all mystics do...".

That would be the exception, which proves the rule.

That's irrelevant. It does not change the truth.

TruthSeeker: "...SO? Did Einstein know God?...".

Very likely!
He more often was talking about the 'Old One', 'Mind of God' and the like. Presumably, he meant by such phrases the God 'Yahweh'.

He talked about God sometimes, but I don't think he knew God. Nobody does. Well, I might have found out, but even then I'm still trying to grasp what all this data mean...

TruthSeeker: "...God doesn't need anything. What would motivate Him to "act'?...No, He can't act like a man simply because He is not a man!...".

What prevents Him of being a man?
There is no obvious reason for God to look down on man.
And certainly there is nothing wrong with being a man.

I agree with your sentences. But your question, well, does it make sense for an omnipresent being to be a man? For God to be a man, He would have to have the same attributes man have. But He is everywhere, therefore, He is not a man.

TruthSeeker: "...He doesn't have a brain. How does He think?
What does He think about?...".

Perhaps!
But He must have mind.

I agree. But how?

TruthSeeker: "...Time does not require verbs.You are thinking something in terms of time=verbs, but it only work one way, not both ways...".

But verbs require time.
And time imply all conceivable verbs (actions) as potentiality.

How's this relevant? Do rocks act?

TruthSeeker: "...Regular definition doen'st cut it.
I want to know what you think...".

You have to demonstrate first why a 'regular definition doesn't cut it'.

Because you are assuming that the person who defined the word knew the truth. But who knows the truth?

You can't just go around throwing assertions all over the place,
and expect that will lead you to finding out the truth.
You have to be serious and optimistic about your research.

I am.

TruthSeeker: "...How about Zeno's Paradox, for instance?...".

What about it?

How does Zeno's Paradox relates to infinity? What do you learn from Zeno?

TruthSeeker: "...Who cares what people think? You can think whatever you want!...".

Well, at least, you need to understand what they are saying,
in order for you to communicate with them effectively.

I agree. But no need to conform.

TruthSeeker: "...Not really. I studied what he said and I plainly don't agree. He doesn't answer those questions anyways...".

Sorry it turned out that way!
He was a very wise French.

Yes, he was wise. But not enough to answer the questions.

TruthSeeker: "...So? I've been doing this for 10 years. I'm still not satisfied with the answers I got...".

I think that is not enough.
Asking questions is only the first step.
To get satisfied, you have to do the rest (your homework) yourself.

I obviously done my homework. I wouldn't know God right now if I didn't.

 

[TruthSeeker]

TruthSeeker: "Truth itself is not puzzling (absurd, but not necessarily puzzling). If you know the truth, yes it is enlightening and informing, but not when you are searching for it...".

Good!

But sometimes, searching for the truth is
more satisfying than finding it.

I agree.

And that is the reason why research scientists
are horrified when they hear such dire predictions
like the 'end of science', the 'end of physics',
the 'last decimal', and the 'final theory'.

Are they?

TruthSeeker: "...The idea of God was thought about before there was an organized religion. For example, Christianism. Jesus talked about God. Then some guys got together and created a religion which we call Christianity...".

That is not exactly true.

Historically, the idea of the 'one all-powerful God'
was introduced for the first time by the Ancient
Egyptian Pharoah, Akhenaten around 1336 BC.

Thank you for proving me right. And thank you for the exact information.

TruthSeeker: "...It applies to everything. You are always observing the world. Of course it does! You are using those things. It's inevitable!...".

Not really!

Observing the world is only one single process of many.

And of course, numbers, logical relations...etc.,
have no subjective attributes to be sensed and felt
by special organs in the human body.

Regardless. You cannot objectively perceive the world.

TruthSeeker: "...You cannot use human attributes to describe something which is not human. I.e. God".

Why the prohibition?
You can't justify that.

Yes, I can. It's like describing a stroller in terms of plants!

 

[TruthSeeker]

AAF,

Maybe we should try to focus again on our question. This is getting very big...

So what was our original question again?

 

[Provita]

Where is waldo??

zZzZzZzZ

OH!!! sorry, wrong question

AAF said something or other supposedly proving a higher entity doesnt exist...

 

[AAF]

Where is waldo??
zZzZzZzZ
OH!!! sorry, wrong question
AAF said something or other supposedly proving a higher entity doesnt exist...

So, are you convinced that God cannot create Himself?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Where is waldo??

Is he still missing!!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!??!

 

[AAF]

TruthSeeker: "My God... this is going to take a while...".

Of course, it's going to take a while.

Those big questions have perplexed and baffled people
for millenia on end.


TruthSeeker: "...When is time the same everywhere? Take for instance new years eve. It's 2:00pm in north america, but in china, they already had all the commemorations and they are now sleeping. Which time is the "right" one? Now, take two people side by side. One of them is 2 weeks old. The other is 99 years old. What is time? If it helps you, draw a timeline of their lives....".

You certainly know that is not time
as defined in science, philosophy, and theology.

For time to be absolute, there must be absolute Simultaneity.
That is to say time must be the same everywhere.
And the same moment must be exactly the same moment
throughout the Universe.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Which does not exist. Therefore, absolute time does not exist. At least not in an objective point of view...

 

[AAF]

Is he still missing!!!??!?!!?!?!?!?!??!

Is his 'waldo' colour-blind?

 

[AAF]

TruthSeeker: "... What does that have to do with Relativity? Relativity describes gravity. I'm not talking about gravity...".

It's also about time and space and
the relativeness of other things.
And it denies the absoluteness of time,
which is obviously one of your beliefs.


TruthSeeker: "...We are discussing God. So Einstein's theory is irrelevant here. Unless you see a connection. Then we can discuss it...".

Well, you're the one who brought it up
by asserting that time is relative.


TruthSeeker: "...Good! So how big is God?...Please, explain further...".

In theory, He can be as bing as He wishes to be.


TruthSeeker: "...I would like to point out that when I ask a question, I'm asking the question relative to what I'm saying or to what you have said...
So.Why cannot God create Himself? Please show me your premises and conclusion...".

He cannot create Himself, because that action
on His part leads to logical contradictions.
Is that clear?

 

[TruthSeeker]

TruthSeeker: "... What does that have to do with Relativity? Relativity describes gravity. I'm not talking about gravity...".

It's also about time and space and
the relativeness of other things.

Yes, but Relativity is not concerned with the existence of God.
Is there anything in Relativity that concerns with the existence of God or any point raised in this discussion?

And it denies the absoluteness of time,
which is obviously one of your beliefs.

What? I obviously don't believe time is absolute! I would suggest you read my post above. Let me show you:

Therefore, absolute time does not exist.

TruthSeeker: "...We are discussing God. So Einstein's theory is irrelevant here. Unless you see a connection. Then we can discuss it...".

Well, you're the one who brought it up
by asserting that time is relative.

You brought up Einstein. It's not necessary for us to discuss Relativity here...

TruthSeeker: "...Good! So how big is God?...Please, explain further...".

In theory, He can be as bing as He wishes to be.

That's a good answer.

TruthSeeker: "...I would like to point out that when I ask a question, I'm asking the question relative to what I'm saying or to what you have said...
So.Why cannot God create Himself? Please show me your premises and conclusion...".

He cannot create Himself, because that action
on His part leads to logical contradictions.
Is that clear?

Remember that I said time is not absolute. If time is not absolute and God needs an absolute time in order to "create Himself", where does that leave us? Do you really think He created Himself?