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

Status
Not open for further replies.
TruthSeeker said:
For the moment, I will quote someone from another thread...

:rolleyes:

What does the phrase 'central in time' really mean?

Also the 'photon' ,as defined in current textbooks, has zero-rest mass,
not zero-rest duration.

More importantly, in this context, NOW (the present moment)
has exactly zero duration, and it has been defined this way long
before the invention of the photon and similar concepts.

As for the question: '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?',
it is clearly not reasonable at all to jump to such a conclusion of 'evolving moments of creation'. That is because NOW does not originate from 'nothingness', but from dividing a homogeneous continuum ad infinitum.

And finally, NOW does not gain value because of 'our perceptions', but to the contrary, 'our perceptions' cannot exist at all in the absence of time (including NOW).

Is that fair and square?

:D
 
You cannot have infinite space without infinite time. They are connected. There is no space and time separated. They are on unified thing. If one is infinite, it follows that the other is also.
 
:)


TruthSeeker: "NOW is completely subjective. I don't experience your now- I can't. I'm not you! Of course time is subjective! And space too! Don't you think an amoeba experience those things differently!?!?...".

Can you mention one or two things that you consider OBJECTIVE?


TruthSeeker: "...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...".

No, that is incorrect.
The term 'RELATIVE', as used in physics, relates only to velocities
and motion in general. And so the only thing 'being relative to the
observer
' is another observer (moving or at rest).


TruthSeeker: "...There's no such a thing. Even my NOW right
now has just changed
...".

Yes, there is!
It seems that 'ABSOLUTE' to you means 'NON-CHANGEABLE'.
But that is wrong, and especially in the context of absolute time.
Because, change always implies time.
And because absoluteness of time means only that this same moment
is exactly the same everywhere in the Universe.


TruthSeeker: "...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".

No, you don't see it, or refuse to see it.
This age comparison is completely beside the point.
Because absoluteness of time is not based on periods or how
long or short they are. Universal simultaneity (Universal NOW)
is the foundation upon which the concept of 'absolute time' is built.

Right?

:D
 
TruthSeeker said:
You cannot have infinite space without infinite time. They are connected. There is no space and time separated. They are on unified thing. If one is infinite, it follows that the other is also.

:cool:

You can have 'infinite space' without 'infinite time',
as in the case of non-spherical cosmologies of the
Big Bang.

You can have 'infinite time' without 'infinite space',
as in the case of the cosmologies of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

And you can have 'infinite space & infinite time',
as in the case of the cosmologies of Newtonian mechanics.

Is that fair and square?

:)
 
AAF said:
:cool:

You can have 'infinite space' without 'infinite time',
as in the case of non-spherical cosmologies of the
Big Bang.
Big Bang is mythology- until you prove it.
Quite frankly, it doesn't work out.

You can have 'infinite time' without 'infinite space',
as in the case of the cosmologies of Aristotle and Ptolemy.
What do they know?

And you can have 'infinite space & infinite time',
as in the case of the cosmologies of Newtonian mechanics.
Yes. And I'm saying that is the correct one.
 
TruthSeeker said:

:cool:

Now, you (TruthSeeker) are no longer a truth seeker!

Your view in that thread is called 'hyper-skeptic's worldview'.
It's based on three assumptions:
1. Reality is unreal!
2. Mental images of reality are hallucinations.
3. Every mind is unique, closed, and isolated
completely from ever thing else.

The three assumptions, above, are false and
have been disproved in three different ways:

(1) The Cartesian disproof:
You can doubt the reality of every thing,
except the fact that you are doubting every
thing right now. Because you cannot doubt that
you doubt! And so your doubt is real. From
the reality of your doubt, we deduce at once
the reality of time, space, and the laws of logic.
And then we use those deductions to prove
the reality of all real things.

(2) The physiological disproof:
All human brains have the same anatomy.
Therefore, they are the same and produce
the same results.

(3) The psychological disproof:
The human mind is an integral part of reality,
and can never produce any mental image that
does not reflect reality directly or indirectly. Even
the craziest hallucinations are produced by mixing
up mental images of real things. In short, the human
mind cannot generate or produce truly original mental
images on its own.

Is that clear?

:D
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm still seeking truth, regardless of how "real" it is. ;)

AAF said:
(1) The Cartesian disproof:
You can doubt the reality of every thing,
except the fact that you are doubting every
thing right now. You cannot doubt that
you doubt! And so your doubt is real. From
the reality of your doubt, we deduce at once
the reality of time, space, and the laws of logic.
And then we use those deductions to prove
the reality of all real things.
How does the reality of your doubt make anything real?

(2) The physiological disproof:
All human brains have the same anatomy.
Therefore, they are the same and produce
the same results.
How do you know? What if we have solipcism?
What if the anatomy is the same, but the brains are used in different ways? It's like computers that have same hardware, but different softwares. Something that runs in a Microsoft may not run in a Machintosh.

(3) The psychological disproof:
The human mind is an integral part of reality,
and can never produce any mental image that
does not reflect reality directly or indirectly. Even
the craziest hallucinations are produced by mixing
up mental images of real things. In short, the human
mind cannot generate or produce truly original mental
images on its own.
Of perceived realities, yes. That doesn't prove that what we perceive to be outside is indeed what outside is.
 
superluminal said:
Now why did you have to go and say that?

There is OVERWHELMING evidence that the universe was, about 13.7by ago, in a very hot and dense state. It is now not in a hot and dense state. It is expanding as all observations show. Without being an astrophysicist, what, exactly, do you find unconvincing about the BB as currently conceived?
There are tons of threads about that. Start there. There's way too much evidence against it.
 
superluminal said:
So, we're having this reality definition problem again are we? If what we percieve is our only way to know what is "real" and is in fact how we define what real is (touch, taste, seeing, hearing, measuring effects of A on B, and soforth) how would you propose to determine what "actual reality" might consist of?
Probably everything that can be imagined, for a matter of fact. What makes what you imagine less real then what you see? You can imagine having sex with a cute girl! Does it feel unreal? Does it affect you in some way? I know it affects me! :D

Pretty real! :D

And how would you ever, ever know you had aprehended "actually real" reality?
Well we know the subjective reality. But it is nearly impossible to know actual reality- though I've been talking about what actual reality is in many threads in the philosophy forums, lately.

So... infinity is actual reality.

For more on reality, check this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55509
 
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.

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 many respects, the idea of God is very similar to the idea of a little spot, which is completely black and completely white at the same time! Such a spot cannot exist as a real possibility, because it is self-contradictory.

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.

:D


See why can't you talk like this everywhere? This is a great argument.
 
:D

TruthSeeker: "Well, I'm still seeking truth, regardless of how "real" it is...".

Good! Only to make sure...


TruthSeeker: "...How does the reality of your doubt make anything real?...".

The reality of your doubt implies as a necessary consequence the reality
of time, the reality of space, the reality of the law of identity, the reality
of the law of contradiction, and the reality of the law of excluded middle.
Otherwise, your doubt cannot be real and it would not work.


TruthSeeker: "...How do you know? What if we have solipcism?
What if the anatomy is the same, but the brains are used in different ways? It's like computers that have same hardware, but different softwares. Something that runs in a Microsoft may not run in a Machintosh
...".

If their structure is the same, then their functions must be the same.
As for 'solipcism', it is what the Cartesian argument is all about.


TruthSeeker: "...Of perceived realities, yes. That doesn't prove that what we perceive to be outside is indeed what outside is".

And doesn't mean it is not outside either.
We have to check and re-check for that.
That is what the Scientific Method is for.

Did I make that clear?

:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top