You mean TruthSeeker?Regulus said:You never cease to immuse me AAF
God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
No it is not! I can very well be compeltely sure of something which is actually wrong! That is bigger trouble then doubt!AAF said:
Even if my doubt is not real, I don't see how the argument would collapse and blah blah blah. I think there may be too many implicit premises there...
What are you saying? We are conscious and we have free will. What's your point?
No they are not. The blueprint, maybe. But there are many differences amongst people.
Well, prove that. I completely disagree.
It's not that simple. The scientific method is not complete garbage. But it is far from complete and it is not very flexible either, amongst other disadvantages. So... I don't agree with the scientific method, even though sometimes I may use it as a starter point in my discovery journey. I even have my own logic methods......
No problem man!
TruthSeeker said:AAF,
I will use your logic to prove that God indeed exist. Here it goes:
God is everything
Everything exists
------------------
Therefore God exists!
That is not mine.
That is yours!
This is a better one:
Every existing thing is real.
God is not real.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Regulus: "Creation is flawed, but no one ever said that God can't have anything to do with evolution. Try harder then that...".
What about the Creationists?
Regulus: "...No one ever said God HAD to create anything, only the Bible. Not eveyrone who believes in God is a Christian. Hence forth, God CAN do anything, God CAN create itself, it's just always been. No one ever said it didn't have the ability. Try harder then a few simple old and tired skeptical view points...".
He had to, otherwise He is not God.
http://www.carm.org/questions/God_created.htm
The Bible didn't say God HAD to create HIMSELF.
This is what the Bible said:
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-3.htm
As for your assertion that 'God CAN do anything, God CAN create itself, it's just always been' is precisely the theists' BIG CONTRADICTION.
How did He do it?
You can't just assume that He did it, and say BYE BYE logic and reason!
Also why those 'No one ever said' statements of yours?
They are all false. Google for them and see the results!
Besides, they prove or disprove nothing at all.
Regulus: "...But that presents at once a thorny and unresolvable dilemma...".
For theists like yourself!
Regulus: "...Once again, God has the ability to create itself, it has always been and is everything, therefor can't have a beginning. No one ever said God didn't have the ability. The only way you yourself can contradict God is by limiting it. Next your going to tell me that God has to obide by the laws of gravity...".
Again, that is the PROBLEM with the God hypothesis.
Infinite ability is contradictory.
And anyone or anything with 'infinite ability' cannot exist.
Regulus: "...Your conclusion is based on the way you view something as weak. If it can create itself, but doesn't need to be created, what's weak about it? And your view on nothingness is also based on spacial reasoning. You have no proof that spacial reasion, time, or shape, exist elsewhere besides our dimension and universe...".
There is a lot of weakness in it.
Just think carefully about it!
As for the concept of 'nothingness', it needs no
time, no space, no shape, no dimenstion, and
no universe to be true and to be perceived.
Because the perception of 'nothingness' is quite
simply the perception of the absence of all
perceptions.
Regulus: "...Actually it if can do anything it can exist as a black and white spot. God can create a circle square, God can create a black and white spot. You just can't understand it...".
If you really believe God can do all that, then say bye bye to logic!
But if you say bye bye to your logic, then you will have no basis
for any concept (true and false) at all, including the concept of God.
BYE, the rest next time!
Last edited:
I Read it, and it's the same thing with a Universe that exists infinitely, it needs a creation. Yet people like yourself except it.
And that is a biblical definition once again. I don't go by the bible. My belief is not based off of the bible. Your definition on God's existance only pertains to the logic of biblical definition. Just becuz they say something about God doesn't mean it's apsolute. And the only reason why I call it God is becuz I used to be catholic.
The Omnipotence doesn't HAVE to create you, only by biblical definition does it say it created us. If we are truely in the likeness of God, wouldn't we always exist just as God does? Maybe not as humans, but as souls?
I don't base things off of the Bible becuz there are questions it doesn't answer.
It never did do it, I never said it did. But it has the ability. You are looking at it from an angle that makes it paradoxical. And once again, there are scientific matters such as the Universe's eternity that lie just as paradoxical as the Omnipotence itself, and yet people like you except it. You claim the Universe can explode and implode cyclicaly for an eternity without any reason or logic, you simply say, BECUZ ITS INFINITE, and that's why it can.
Once again, it's left up to opinion. Whether the Omnipotence did create the Universe or not, both definitions of it's beginning sound paradoxical and yet scientists agree. There are things that cannot be explained, but only by it's title.
And yes, it's no proof the Omnipotence exists, but it's no proof that it doesn't, because there are things scientists except that are seemingly paradoxical.
It just means it's an opinion matter, whether it does exist or not, opinion. As it cannot be proven with logic. Same goes for the idea of the Universe eventuating without the Omnipotence. Without the Omnipotence's involvement it does sound paradoxical. And yet the Omnipotence's own existance sounds paradoxical.
Opinionated in the end.
It's not contradiction. Your looking at it in an angle that seems paradoxical. It's not, it only seems paradoxical. When looked at it with our minds it is. There's no proof it does, or doesn't exist. And there's no proof it doesn't exist when using our logic to disprove it.
It's just like the Universe's eternal inflation and deflation, it is seemingly paradoxical and yet the only way to describe how the everything has a cause. Same with it's existance, the Omnipotence is the only way to really explain it's cause even though it's paradoxical.
Then explain it's weakness! Stop beating around the bush.
What are you saying? That nothingness is non existant? And where did I say anything about nothingness?
Then say bye bye to the idea of a Universe that has no creator.Becuz you simply can't explain it scientifically only by simply saying it's infinite.
Regarding infinite ability - that's what makes god unique - if god didn't have infinite ability then he wouldn't be god existing in full consciousness eternally.
There is the so-called atheistic clincher "Can god create something so heavy that he cannot lift it?" - if the answer is yes then he is not god because he is not all-powerful. If the answer is no then he is not god because he is not supremely creative.
The answer is that god can create something so heavy that he cannot lift it, but the next moment (because of his infinite capabilities) he can lift it - bu tthen th enext moment he can create a heavier thing and so on - god's qualities are constantly expanding and if you want to talk about the necessity of a god being limited to prove his existence - well that's a more fit description for ourselves
There is the so-called atheistic clincher "Can god create something so heavy that he cannot lift it?" - if the answer is yes then he is not god because he is not all-powerful. If the answer is no then he is not god because he is not supremely creative.
The answer is that god can create something so heavy that he cannot lift it, but the next moment (because of his infinite capabilities) he can lift it - bu tthen th enext moment he can create a heavier thing and so on - god's qualities are constantly expanding and if you want to talk about the necessity of a god being limited to prove his existence - well that's a more fit description for ourselves
TruthSeeker said:AAF, I will use your logic to prove that God indeed exist. Here it goes:
God is everything
Everything exists
------------------
Therefore God exists!
That is not my logic, but yours!
Here is the best one:
Every thing whose concept is contradictory does not exist.
The concept of God is contradictory.
Therefore, God does not exist.
No, it is yours. This is what you did. You simply defined God in a random way to prove He doesn't exist. And I simply cannot agree with your definition.AAF said:
That begs the question. This is a different fallacy.This is a better one:
Every existing thing is real.
God is not real.
Therefore, God does not exist.
TruthSeeker: "No, it is yours. This is what you did. You simply defined God in a random way to prove He doesn't exist. And I simply cannot agree with your definition...".
No, it is yours!
I thought we've agreed on those definitions of God:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
So, show us your definition of Him!
TruthSeeker: "...That begs the question. This is a different fallacy".
There is no begging the question here.
It's just nice formal deduction.
Those are the fallacies:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
lightgigantic said:Regarding infinite ability - that's what makes god unique - if god didn't have infinite ability then he wouldn't be god existing in full consciousness eternally.
There is the so-called atheistic clincher "Can god create something so heavy that he cannot lift it?" - if the answer is yes then he is not god because he is not all-powerful. If the answer is no then he is not god because he is not supremely creative.
The answer is that god can create something so heavy that he cannot lift it, but the next moment (because of his infinite capabilities) he can lift it - bu tthen th enext moment he can create a heavier thing and so on - god's qualities are constantly expanding and if you want to talk about the necessity of a god being limited to prove his existence - well that's a more fit description for ourselves
Hi lightgigantic:
Yes, for God to be God, He must have 'infinite ability'.
But 'infinite ability' is contradictory; and that is the problem.
With regard to the above 'atheistic clincher',
The idea of 'evolving God' fails miserably to solve it.
The reason for its failure is that the evolution of God
implies as necessary 'God of today is greater and more able
than God of yesterday'! And hence, the notion of 'One God',
who is always the same at all times, is destroyed.
Not only in time, but also God's oneness is destroyed by the given
answer at the same moment of time. That is because,
if God is evolving and less now than Himself in the future,
then it's quite possible that another evolving God, who is greater than
this evolving one, exists at this very moment of God's evolution.
The end result of all the above is that the evolving God is no God!
Is that clear?
'This sentence is false'.
I contradict myself, therefore I don't exist.
I contradict myself, therefore I don't exist.
Regulus: "...Nope, you just tyed yourself in another knot. It's just like said, "infinite causality CANNOT exist becuz every action has a reaction". Though seemingly paradoxal, it still isn't considered contradictabel...".
There is no knot here. You're imagining it!
Moreover, Newton's law of 'action & reaction'
does not contradict, in any way, causality infinite or otherwise.
Your assertion, therefore, is totally false.
Regulus: "...Becuz it can't be disproven. Your arguement is not bullet proof...".
You're just taking for granted that the hypothesis of God
cannot be disproven, and turning blind eye to the fact that
if any concept or idea or perception is logically contadictory,
then it is false and its supposed entity would not be qualified
to exist as a real possibility.
Regulus: "...Really, I didn't know chemicals effected you that way. So chemicals control us. I guess that means when you take a drug you as a person no longer exist...".
What does chemistry have to do with this?
People, most of the time, are polite and politically
correct, and would not point out contradictions
and absurdities in other people's beliefs, even when
they see one. And that is exactly the case regarding
the supposed immunity of God from being proved or disproved.
Regulus: "...Wait a minute, so a being of Omnipotence has to exist by it's own laws? Gee, I thought it was Omnipotent.Guess your argueing against a semipotence. As I see it, time, is not proven to be apart of any other Universe/Dimension except our 3 Dimensional Universe...".
There is no 'semipotence' here,
only contradictory 'Omnipotence'.
As for time, it must be an essential and
necessay attribute of all things that exist.
Because existence is absolutely meaningless
in the absence of time.
Regulus: "...Not exactly, time is only proven to be a property of our 3 dimensional Universe. Where's your proof that it must exist elsewhere?...".
I'm afraid that does not make sense.
And existence of higher dimensions
without time does not make sense either.
Regulus: "...So God has to be infinitely small? And large? Aren't you defining it? Definining it limits it. One can infer that it is greater than infinity. You just can't understand it. You don't know what EVERYTHING is. Infinity once again like time is a description using our 3 Dimensional Universe...".
God is a concept of our creation.
Therefore, the validity and non-validity of this notion
is evaluated and judged by out standards and
by our logic. And it is wrong to assume
that the concept of God is valid, because it
might be valid by the logic of higher dimensions!
Regulus: "...Once again, time is a property of our 3 Dimensional Universe. You've no proof whatsoever that it does not exist elsewhere. Hard to wrap around ones mind, I understand, but it's true. It's impossible to fathom, but once again we are contemplating with minds wrapped around a 3 Dimensional Universe in which we use linear minds that function in a chronological way. Your ascerssion in disproving God imply's that God is bound by it's own laws. If it's bound by the laws of a 3 Dimensional Universe it is not Omnipotent...".
Once again, you are supposing other kinds of logic
in higher dimensions! And that supposition is false.
Furthermore, time is everywhere.
There is no escape from time, except to absolute
NOTHINGNESS.
Regulus: "...Yet again something you cannot fathom in your mind...".
Yes, we can.
It's you who still refuse to fathom the fact that God does not exist.
Because His very concept is contradictory and logically very absurd.
Regulus: "...You have proven nothing.You never cease to immuse me AAF"!
You are talking here about 'Truthseeker's famous deduction'!
Is that clear?
Dr Hannibal Lecter said:
:bugeye:
If you are not absolutely perfect, then
self-contradiction cannot destroy you!
In addition, self-contradiction in this context,
is not to do something and then in the next moment
do its exact opposite, but to have two or more
contradictory attributes or characteristics.
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.
O.K.?
AAF said:
Then why do you have the same sense of "I" or ego despite having grown up from a baby to adulthood? How does increased change and improvement destroy one's ego?
As for one god evolving in to another god that could supercede the existing god - If you went to an artificial insemination clinic and asked the counter staff "I want to become my own father" perhaps they would kindly explain that the position was already taken.
No no no! You stated a definition which makes no sense and then used it to create an argument against God.AAF said:
I certainly never agreed in that! I recall, in fact, replying to that and disagreeing completely.
I shown my definition. It's in Taoism.
If I were you, I would read this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_definition
Precisely the issue with AAF's argumentDr Hannibal Lecter said:
TruthSeeker: "No it is not! I can very well be compeltely sure of something which is actually wrong! That is bigger trouble then doubt! Even if my doubt is not real, I don't see how the argument would collapse and blah blah blah. I think there may be too many implicit premises there...".
It's really a very simple matter.
If your doubt (your reason for doubting reality) is false,
then your entire agrument is groundless.
You have to remember that reality is true as given.
The burden of disproving it is on the challenger (YOU).
In any case, there is no way for you out of this.
On one hand, if your doubt is real, then reality of all
real things is deduced from the reality of your doubt.
On the other hand, if your doubt is an illusion, then
your agrument against reality is baseless and your
challenge is worse than nothing.
TruthSeeker: "...What are you saying? We are conscious and we have free will. What's your point?...".
Of course, we are.
And you can choose to be wrong!
TruthSeeker: "...No they are not. The blueprint, maybe. But there are many differences amongst people....".
The blueprint?
That is it.
TruthSeeker: "...Well, prove that. I completely disagree....".
The burden of proof that 'reality is an allusion' is
squarely on your shoulders!
TruthSeeker: "...It's not that simple. The scientific method is not complete garbage. But it is far from complete and it is not very flexible either, amongst other disadvantages. So... I don't agree with the scientific method, even though sometimes I may use it as a starter point in my discovery journey. I even have my own logic methods....".
The scientific method is one integrated package.
Take it all; or leave it all!
You can't choose only nice items (in your view) out of it.
Is that fair and square?
lightgigantic: "Then why do you have the same sense of "I" or ego despite having grown up from a baby to adulthood? How does increased change and improvement destroy one's ego?...".
It is not the 'EGO' of God, which has been
destroyed by your hypothesis of 'evolving God'.
It is the idea that 'God is the only God out there'
that has been completely demolished by it.
Furthermore, the hypothesis of 'evolving God' is
inconsistent and totally incompatible with your
initial assumption of God's infinite ability, and
omnipotence, and all His other 'omnis':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence
That is because the evolving God can only
have 'finite ability' and 'finite power' at every
given moment of time. In other words, your
supposition is self-contradictory, and cannot
get off the ground at all.
lightgigantic: "...As for one god evolving in to another god that could supercede the existing god - If you went to an artificial insemination clinic and asked the counter staff "I want to become my own father" perhaps they would kindly explain that the position was already taken".
That is beside the point.
Because what is in question, here, is
the multiplicity of Deities brought about
by your proposition of 'God that can
supercede Himself'. Very briefly, your
theological theory leads necessarily to an
infinite number of 'Gods', each of them with
finite ability and limited power and unfit to
be called 'Almighty and all-powerful God'.
Did I make that clear?
- Status