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

Status
Not open for further replies.
AAF said:
:(

No.
You are the one who made that fallacy.
Just look:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php
Click to expand...
Read closely:

"Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59) "

Just because you haven't been able to understand it, doesn't mean it is illogical and false. :eek:
 
TruthSeeker said:
Read closely:
"Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59) " Just because you haven't been able to understand it, doesn't mean it is illogical and false. :eek:
Click to expand...

:)

And just because you haven't been able to understand it, it doesn't mean it is logical and true either.
More importantly, the argument for both cases holds only if and only if no conradiction is uncovered. But the idea of God (Christian or otherwis) is full of conradictions of all sorts, and therefore, the impossibility of God's existence is a proven one.
Let me remind you of the important questions once again:
1. Who created the Creator?
2. How can God be in all places at all times?
3. How can God create something out of nothing?
4. How can God exist in the absence of time?
5. How can God exist in the absence of space?
6. Why did God take an infinite period of time to create the world?
7. On what basis do theists believe that the universe cannot exist without God?

Every question of the above points to a fundamental contradiction that destroys the idea of God as a viable hypothesis.

TruthSeeker, as your alias implies, you claim to seek the truth.
But your mind is closed completely to any disproof regarding the absolute
impossibility of God. Why? Because you wish God is there to take care of your small needs. Because you want to stay baby forever. And because you don't want to grow up! And that is O.K for most people, but it is not O.K. at all for truth seekers. To be a true (not a wanna-be) truth seeker, you must abandon your small desires and wishful thinking, and you must overcome your unfounded fears. Be a truth seeker! Can you do it for the sake of your truth-hungry brain?

:D
 
AAF said:
:)

And just because you haven't been able to understand it, it doesn't mean it is logical and true either.
More importantly, the argument for both cases holds only if and only if no conradiction is uncovered. But the idea of God (Christian or otherwis) is full of conradictions of all sorts, and therefore, the impossibility of God's existence is a proven one.
Click to expand...
There are no contradictions. Paradox? Maybe. But no contradictions.

Let me remind you of the important questions once again:
1. Who created the Creator?
Click to expand...
He always existed.

2. How can God be in all places at all times?
Click to expand...
He is space-time.

3. How can God create something out of nothing?
Click to expand...
Ever studied subatomic particle physics? Quantum physics?

4. How can God exist in the absence of time?
Click to expand...
Who said there is no time?

5. How can God exist in the absence of space?
Click to expand...
Who said there is no space?

6. Why did God take an infinite period of time to create the world?
Click to expand...
What is wrong with that?

7. On what basis do theists believe that the universe cannot exist without God?
Click to expand...
Why does that matter? The point is that He may exist and we should investigate.

Every question of the above points to a fundamental contradiction that destroys the idea of God as a viable hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I don't think you have all the answers. I, myself, don't have all the answers.

TruthSeeker, as your alias implies, you claim to seek the truth.
But your mind is closed completely to any disproof regarding the absolute
impossibility of God.
Click to expand...
Yours is closed to the possibility! You fail to answer the above questions in any proper way.

Why? Because you wish God is there to take care of your small needs.
Click to expand...
*pfff! I don't give a fucking shit! I have very little concerns to my own needs. I spend most of my time taking care of the needs of others!

Because you want to stay baby forever.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a silly assumption!

And because you don't want to grow up!
Click to expand...
I have a wife and a 3-month-old baby. Do you really think so?

And that is O.K for most people, but it is not O.K. at all for truth seekers. To be a true (not a wanna-be) truth seeker, you must abandon your small desires and wishful thinking, and you must overcome your unfounded fears. Be a truth seeker! Can you do it for the sake of your truth-hungry brain?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should become a truth seeker! Wanna try to carry the world on your back? :eek:
 
TruthSeeker said:
Premise #1 is wrong. A being with higher consciousness would not discern between objects because objects are simple representations of infinite realities processed by the brain. We only define objects because our brains cannot deal (or is not used to) with infinite information. God can. That denies premise #2. Premises 4 to 6 are also wrong simply because God is everything.
Click to expand...

:D

Don't blame Kant!
Blame the contradictory and absurd concepts of
'Omnipresence' and 'Omniconsciousness'.
 
:cool:

TruthSeeker: "Who is to say what NOW is!? My NOW is completely different then yours!...".

'NOW' is very intuitive and clear.
Even sheepboys and cowboys and camelboys know precisely
what 'NOW' is!


TruthSeeker: "...That's an illusion because your time is completely subjective...".

'Time subjective'!
Then what else can be objective to you?
I think you need to stop throwing around those undefined words.
Because they are empty and foggy and useless.


TruthSeeker: "...Of course it is an absolute frame of reference! You can use anything is an absolute frame of reference. That's why it is relative...".

'Absolute' and 'Relative' frames of reference are mutually exclusive.
In fact, only 'Absolute Space', as defined in the mechanics of Isaac Newton,
is truly an absolute frame of reference.

TruthSeeker: "...There's no such a thing as an absolute NOW. There are only relative absolute frames of reference. None of them is more true then the other. They are all equaly true and equaly absolute. That's why "absolute frame of reference" in itself is a relative term"!

Wrong!
'Universal Now' is the only thing that distinguishes 'absolute time' from all other concepts of time.

;)
 
:bugeye:

TruthSeeker: "So? You still don't see God when He is right in front of your nose!...".

The only thing that you can see, for sure, right in the front
of your nose is your moustache or the perching pad of
your God-made moustache!


TruthSeeker: "...Not that pound. And I asked you how tall you are"!

This is your original question 'What is your weight'?

Besides, only your weight can be infinite, not your height.
And only in one case, can your weight be infinite, i.e.
on scales (balance) at rest with the imaginary surface
of an Einsteinian black hole!

:D
 
You surely can tell who the bona fide Physicists, Relativists and Einsteinian-Black-Holymen are around here! :D
 
AAF said:
:D

Don't blame Kant!
Blame the contradictory and absurd concepts of
'Omnipresence' and 'Omniconsciousness'.
Click to expand...
There's nothing contradictory about those things. Absurd? Maybe. But not contradictory.
 
AAF said:
:cool:

TruthSeeker: "Who is to say what NOW is!? My NOW is completely different then yours!...".

'NOW' is very intuitive and clear.
Even sheepboys and cowboys and camelboys know precisely
what 'NOW' is!
Click to expand...
NOW is completely subjective. I don't experience your now- I can't. I'm not you!

TruthSeeker: "...That's an illusion because your time is completely subjective...".

'Time subjective'!
Then what else can be objective to you?
I think you need to stop throwing around those undefined words.
Because they are empty and foggy and useless.
Click to expand...
Of course time is subjective! And space too! Don't you think an amoeba experience those things differently!?!? :eek:


TruthSeeker: "...Of course it is an absolute frame of reference! You can use anything is an absolute frame of reference. That's why it is relative...".

'Absolute' and 'Relative' frames of reference are mutually exclusive.
In fact, only 'Absolute Space', as defined in the mechanics of Isaac Newton,
is truly an absolute frame of reference.
Click to expand...
No, you don't get it. You can't wrap your head around the paradox, I don't think. Think about something as being absolute. Now think about the same absolute thing being relative to the observer. That's what a relative absolute frame of reference is. It is a combination between an absolute variable and a subjective observer. That's what you experience everyday when you think.

TruthSeeker: "...There's no such a thing as an absolute NOW. There are only relative absolute frames of reference. None of them is more true then the other. They are all equaly true and equaly absolute. That's why "absolute frame of reference" in itself is a relative term"!

Wrong!
'Universal Now' is the only thing that distinguishes 'absolute time' from all other concepts of time.
Click to expand...
There's no such a thing. Even my NOW right now has just changed.

You don't see it. Imagine someone is completing 5 years of age today and another one is completing 50. They are both in the same "now" in terms of space, but they are 45 years apart in terms of time. You fail to perceive the second variable.
 
AAF said:
Besides, only your weight can be infinite, not your height.
And only in one case, can your weight be infinite, i.e.
on scales (balance) at rest with the imaginary surface
of an Einsteinian black hole!
Click to expand...
No. Your height IS infinite. :eek:
 
TruthSeeker said:
Basing His definition on "what he can do" seems to be limiting to Him. Why would He want to do something? Does He have desires? What on earth would compell Him to do something (pun! :p )?
Click to expand...

;)

People can only reach rationally the concept of 'God'
through induction.They look at existing things.
And then say 'there must be a creator. Things cannot exist
without a creator'. And so they define their 'God' according to
'what He can do'. They have no other way of defining Him.
Unfortunately for them, induction involves no logical necessity.
And conclusions based on induction are not logically necessary in any way.

Now take a look at the following definitions of 'God'!
Each one of these definitions is based directly or indirectly on induction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

:D
 
Last edited:
AAF said:
:cool:

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.
:D
Click to expand...


Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them?

Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.



Did that guy Ockham go to hell yet, or is he still alive?
 
AAF said:
;)

People can only reach rationally the concept of 'God'
through induction.They look at existing things.
And then say 'there must be a creator. Things cannot exist
without a creator'. And so they define their 'God' according to
'what He can do'. They have no other way of defining Him.
Unfortunately for them, induction involves no logical necessity.
And conclusions based on induction are not logically necessary in any way.
Click to expand...
That doesn't follow at all. Humans define things all the time. So what do you say? Black holes also don't exist? And atoms? And subatomic particles? :eek: :bugeye:

Now take a look at the following definitions of 'God'!
Each one of these definitions is based directly or indirectly on induction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
Click to expand...
Science is looking for the ultimate particle and the theory of everything. That's God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top