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

Status
Not open for further replies.
:)


TruthSeeker: "There are no contradictions. Paradox? Maybe. But no contradictions...".

There are contradictions and paradoxes too.
The idea of 'God' just can't stand any kind of logical analysis.



TruthSeeker: "...He always existed...".

So God has no Creator!
Why don't we then save ourselves a lot of time and declare
that the Universe has always existed and needed no Creator?


TruthSeeker: "...He is space-time...".

'Space-time' is a God!
Not a chance!
It lacks the essential attributes of a Deity.


TruthSeeker: "...Ever studied subatomic particle physics? Quantum physics?...".

That branch of physics has nothing to do with God or theology.


TruthSeeker: "...Who said there is no time? Who said there is no space?...".

So, in your view, God did not create time and space.
Right?

TruthSeeker: "...What is wrong with that?...".

What is wrong?
How can an infinite period of time come to pass?
What was the 'lazy' God doing before creating the world?
How can the paradox of infinite past be resolved?


TruthSeeker: "...Why does that matter? The point is that He may exist and we should investigate...".

He cannot exist, if His very concept is built upon contradictions.


TruthSeeker: "...I don't think you have all the answers. I, myself, don't have all the answers...".

You are just making an educated guess.


TruthSeeker: "...Yours is closed to the possibility! You fail to answer the above questions in any proper way...".

Those questions are for theists like yourself to answer.
And if you answer them in any proper way, you will certainly have
un-resolvable contradictions on your table.


TruthSeeker: "...*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..."!

You missed the point!
The 'small needs', in question, are not the 'concerns' you mentioned.
Those 'small needs' of the theists are of the same sort as:
1. Muslims would like to de-flower virgins and eat camel meat
no-stop in their afterlife.
2. Christians would like to be rewarded for their good deeds by gazing at
their 'Lord' forever.
3. Buddhists would like to shout in the end 'hurray, hurray, we have no passion'. As if life without passion were worth living!


TruthSeeker: "... Well, that's a silly assumption!
I have a wife and a 3-month-old baby. Do you really think so?...".

Congratulations.


TruthSeeker: "... Maybe you should become a truth seeker! Wanna try to carry the world on your back"?

No, no!
You are the truth seeker.
You are good at it!

:D
 
Last edited:
AAF said:
;)

Hi ghost7584:

1. 'And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_am_that_I_am
Click to expand...
Idiotic religious people, can't understand that at all... :rolleyes:

This is what God meant:
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The name is the mother of the ten thousand things."
Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1


Or in the Bible...


John 1:1
" 1(A)In the beginning was (B)the Word, and the Word was (C)with God, and (D)the Word was God. "
 
AAF said:
How can the paradox of infinite past be resolved?
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I used to ask. Until I realized that space is also infinite and that only our perception is finite.

It's a matter of measure....

How many points there are in a straight line? ;)
 
TruthSeeker said:
Idiotic religious people, can't understand that at all... This is what God meant:
"The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The name is the mother of the ten thousand things."
Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1
Or in the Bible...
John 1:1
" 1(A)In the beginning was (B)the Word, and the Word was (C)with God, and (D)the Word was God. "
Click to expand...

:)

So are you with them or against them?

I don't think those Taoists got the hang of it:
https://maxvps001.maximumasp.com/v001u23zac/Tao/Index.asp

The writers of the Bible, also, mixed things of creation up, as it's clear
from the above passage.

:cool:
 
MarcAC said:
Here's something even better! [:D]
Click to expand...

:)

Very good question!
But I can't help you there.

I've reached the conclusion of 'infinite weight', only
throught simple induction of this sort:

1. Your weight on Jupiter is greater than your weight on Earth.
2. Your weight on Sol is greater than your weight on Jupiter.
3. Your weight on Sirius B is greater than weight on Sol.
4. And your weight on a radio pulsar is greater thant your
weight on Sirius B.

Therefore, your weight on the imaginary surface of a black hole,
must be infinite.

:D
 
Last edited:
AAF said:
:)

Very good question!
But I can't help you there.

I've reached the conclusion of 'infinite weight', only
throught simple induction of this sort:

1. your weight on Jupiter is greater than your weight on Earth.
2. Your weight on Sol is greater than your weight on Jupiter.
3. Your weight on Sirius B is greater than weight on Sol.
4. And your weight on a radio pulsar is greater thant your
weight on Sirius B.

Therefore, your weight on the imaginary surface of a black hole,
must be infinite.

:D
Click to expand...
Your weight is always infinite...
 
AAF said:
Therefore, your weight on the imaginary surface of a black hole,
must be infinite.

:D
Click to expand...
:)

Comedy.

Hence my use of the term Einsteinian-Black-Holyman.

I'll subscribe now!

:D
 
;)


TruthSeeker: "Against catholics. I'm with Jesus' teachings, however...'.

Why against them?
They are nice and God-loving people.

TruthSeeker: "...What? How does that follow"?

How?
Their idea of a 'Creator' is so elastic!

:D
 
AAF said:
How?
Click to expand...
I could invent a measure right now which could make your weight equal to 124939852038503294802398409821098203029183029840 truthweighters or something like that. :D

Fareheit is a good example of that... :rolleyes:
A measure that is only based on itself, basically...

Or I could create a measure that would count the number of molecules, for instance. Still, that would be relative to the number of molecules. That's what I was talking when I mentioned relative absolute frames of reference. You create an "absolute" measure with a certain relevant range (often infinite) and you compare the measure to other measurements of the same scale or an object which is used as a frame to reference the model- thus "relative" absolute frame of reference.

Regardless, finity is simply a relative measure. Our brains cannot process infinity, so it creates finity. Even when you look at an apple for example, you are not just looking at an apple. You are looking at millions of molecules, or billions of atoms, or trillions of particles or an infinite amount of space-time. :cool:
 
AAF said:
;)


TruthSeeker: "Against catholics. I'm with Jesus' teachings, however...'.

Why against them?
They are nice and God-loving people.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. Maybe some of the followers, but not the religion itself. The religion contantly punishes people and make them believe they are bad and can do whatever they want because they are going to be "forgiven". It's a co-dependent religion based on blindness. Doesn't seem nice and God-loving to me...

TruthSeeker: "...What? How does that follow"?

How?
Their idea of a 'Creator' is so elastic!
Click to expand...
The Maker IS elastic!
 
TruthSeeker said:
No they aren't. Maybe some of the followers, but not the religion itself. The religion contantly punishes people and make them believe they are bad and can do whatever they want because they are going to be "forgiven". It's a co-dependent religion based on blindness. Doesn't seem nice and God-loving to me...


The Maker IS elastic!
Click to expand...
All religon is based on blindness and some more than others...
 
Ever heard of Taoism?

EDIT: Well, Taosim is actually a philosophy, though... :eek:
 
TruthSeeker said:
I could invent a measure right now which could make your weight equal to 24939852038503294802398409821098203029183029840 truthweighters or something like that....
Click to expand...

:)

Yes, you can make bigger numbers that way.
But such a procedure of using smaller and smaller
units of measurements would not change the real quantity.

For instance, you can measure your age in years, days,
hours, seconds, or nano-seconds. But that would not
make you older or younger than you actually are.

Therefore, there is only one way for making your weight changes
in the real sense. And that is to make use of this equation:
W (weight) = m (mass) * g (acceleration due to gravity).

Given the same amount of M (the source of gravity), it's always possible to increase g indefinitely by making M indefinitely dense. And that is the only way to increase
your weight.

Is that clear?

:D
 
That's not an absolute measurement. It is comparing it to gravity. If you make any comparisons, it is already relative to the comparison you are making...!! :eek:

;)
 
TruthSeeker said:
That's exactly what I used to ask. Until I realized that space is also infinite and that only our perception is finite.
It's a matter of measure....
How many points there are in a straight line?
Click to expand...

:cool:

Your realization that space is infinite does not solve the problem
ot Infinite Past. Because the two types of infinity in both cases
are very different. Infinity of space is always potential infinity,
not an actual one. The same is true in the case of infinite
future. Infinity is also potential in the case of starting from the present
and regressing indefinitely towards the past.

In all cases of potential infinity, there is no paradox and no contradiction.
To the contrary, potential infinity here guarantees logical consistency
and the eradication of contradictions and paradoxes.

The situation is quite different in the case of actual infinity.
Take, for example, the problem of Creation, where infinity
of past time is actual. Here, God, simply, spent an infinite period of time,
and then about 6000 years or so ago, He decided to create every thing!
In this case, we cannot start from 6000 years ago, and then regress towards
the past indefinitely, as we can do in the case of ordinary chains of causality.
Because, no matter how you look at it, God already spent an infinite time
before creating the world. And hence the infinity of the past here is actual.
And so, how did God do it?
How did infinite past come to pass?
No matter what your answer to those questions is, it always contains a fatal
contradiction that implies the absolute impossibility of Creation.
And that is the theists' BIG PROBLEM.

Is that clear?

:D
 
For the moment, I will quote someone from another thread...

Quantum Quack said:
In science it is often mentioned that a light event which is central in time is of infinitely small duration. In other words a photon has a "rest" duration of an infinitely small or zero amount of time. Thus it can be concluded that the NOW is actually a moment of zero or infinitely small duration.[ disregarding Max Planck theories of Size and duration for the moment]

So would it not be reasonable to extend this to state that the NOW is a constantly evolving moment of creation originating from nothingness that only gains value because of temporal meaning gained by our perceptions? We remember what was before and what we think will be.....with out such memory we would not percieve anything. [ everything therefore is a temporal memory of a zero or infinitely small duration moment of creation. Whether that be a memory of past events or a memory of future anticipations]?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top