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

[lightgigantic]

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'.
:

You can destroy god and his ego can remain intact - I'm intrigued?

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.:

when you were a baby you had finite power. when you were a teenager you had finite power - but the power increased - and you didn't diminish any lesser in reality

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?

Not really - There is the example of an iron rod in a fire - if left in a fire it can take on the qualities of fire (ie become red hot)- but if taken out of the fire it gradually looses those qualities - It doesn't have the ability to assume fiery qualities by its own potency - it is completely dependant on the fire to develop its qualities
- that's why I gave the example of the artificial insemination clinic - god is accepted as the cause of all causes, including your very self - you can display so many "godlike" abilities just like an iron rod can display fire by the cause of the fire, but if you want to promote yourself as the cause of your cause you run into the same issues encountered at the artificial insemination clinic.

 

[AAF]

TruthSeeker: "No no no! You stated a definition which makes no sense and then used it to create an argument against God...".

The well-known definitions of God make no sense to you?
Certainly, you are joking!

God has been defined as the 'Ultimate Creator'.
And this definition makes a lot of sense for most people.
Therefore, you have to accept it, or spell out your
customised definition of God explicitly and clearly.

That is the proper way for searching for the truth.
You can't just go around writing, posting, and debating
using only your own private and foggy definitions and terms;
and expect people to make sense of what you are saying.


TruthSeeker: "...I certainly never agreed in that! I recall, in fact, replying to that and disagreeing completely. I shown my definition. It's in Taoism...".

You never gave any clue about that.
But now, I know!

Is this your God?
http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

Is this your definition of Him?
http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/world/taoism.htm

Answer the questions explicitly & clearly, please!

TruthSeeker: "...If I were you, I would read this one:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_definition)".

1. "A definition is no good if it simply gives a one-word synonym".
2. "A definition does no good if it uses a very near synonym in the definition".
3. "Definitions can be too broad". OR "Definitions can be too narrow".
4. "Definitions can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_definition

All of the above must apply to the definitions of God in Taoism.
Have you noticed that?

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "You can destroy god and his ego can remain intact - I'm intrigued?...".

Your 'intriguement' is misguided.
Because 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.


lightgigantic: "...when you were a baby you had finite power. when you were a teenager you had finite power - but the power increased - and you didn't diminish any lesser in reality...".

But your 'finite power' starts diminishing after sixties!
Accordingly, anyone or anything with 'finite power' cannot be
qualified for receiving the grand title called 'GOD'.
O.K.?

lightgigantic: "...Not really - There is the example of an iron rod in a fire - if left in a fire it can take on the qualities of fire (ie become red hot)- but if taken out of the fire it gradually looses those qualities - It doesn't have the ability to assume fiery qualities by its own potency - it is completely dependant on the fire to develop its qualities - that's why I gave the example of the artificial insemination clinic - god is accepted as the cause of all causes, including your very self - you can display so many "godlike" abilities just like an iron rod can display fire by the cause of the fire, but if you want to promote yourself as the cause of your cause you run into the same issues encountered at the artificial insemination clinic".

God is assumed ad hoc to be the 'cause of all causes'.
But God cannot promote Himself as 'the cause of His cause'.
That is because, God runs into the same contradictions regarding
your wish of fathering yourself at the 'artificial insemination clinic'.
And hence, God is not the 'cause of all causes' as you initially
assumed ad hoc and without any justification whatsoever.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "You can destroy god and his ego can remain intact - I'm intrigued?...".

Your 'intriguement' is misguided.
Because 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.


lightgigantic: "...when you were a baby you had finite power. when you were a teenager you had finite power - but the power increased - and you didn't diminish any lesser in reality...".

But your 'finite power' starts diminishing after sixties!
Accordingly, anyone or anything with 'finite power' cannot be
qualified for receiving the grand title called 'GOD'.
O.K.?

I never said that human beings were god - I said god was god - I used humans as an example how progress in potency doesn't destroythe self - what destroys the body with humans is old age and has nothingto do with the progress of their potency - its not like the more quickly you become more strong, more intelligent and more happy the mor e quickly you advance towards death - Your argument was that the progress of potency is somehow intrinsic to destroying the self

lightgigantic: "...Not really - There is the example of an iron rod in a fire - if left in a fire it can take on the qualities of fire (ie become red hot)- but if taken out of the fire it gradually looses those qualities - It doesn't have the ability to assume fiery qualities by its own potency - it is completely dependant on the fire to develop its qualities - that's why I gave the example of the artificial insemination clinic - god is accepted as the cause of all causes, including your very self - you can display so many "godlike" abilities just like an iron rod can display fire by the cause of the fire, but if you want to promote yourself as the cause of your cause you run into the same issues encountered at the artificial insemination clinic".

God is assumed ad hoc to be the 'cause of all causes'.

ad hoc by your definition but not by god's - actually you are begging the question by beginning on the premise "We all know god doesn't exist so his claim to being the cause of all causes is ad hoc" For the purposes of discussion it is better to let ideas stand on their own merit and not beg the question by assuming what is real and what is not real befor e beginning a discussion on what is real

But God cannot promote Himself as 'the cause of His cause'.
That is because, God runs into the same contradictions regarding
your wish of fathering yourself at the 'artificial insemination clinic'.
And hence, God is not the 'cause of all causes' as you initially
assumed ad hoc and without any justification whatsoever

again, begging the question or alternatively relying in a mundane concept of god
Essentially you have a mundane defintion of God - I have to ask you what is the source that you use to produce your definition of god otherwise its a waste of time trying to establish the truth or falseness of qualities around an object that is not defined.
You seem to working under the impression that the living entity has the capacity to become god if we begin to accept the notion of god - if that is true then of course it is very easy to prove that god doesn't exist - but you see that it is declared quite clearly in practically any scripture you care to mention that there is a distinct difference between the living entity (whether conditioned or liberated) and god, just like there is a distinct difference between a father and his son and a fire and an iron rod.

So my question is what is the authority that you draw on that god and the living entity are in the same catergory?

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "I never said that human beings were god - I said god was god - I used humans as an example how progress in potency doesn't destroythe self - what destroys the body with humans is old age and has nothingto do with the progress of their potency - its not like the more quickly you become more strong, more intelligent and more happy the mor e quickly you advance towards death - Your argument was that the progress of potency is somehow intrinsic to destroying the self...".

'I said god was god'!
Such a definition is useless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_definition

My agrument is this:
If anyone or anything does not have INFINITE POWER
all the time, then that one or that thing is not GOD.
And so your 'developing god' is not God,
because your 'god' has limited power all the time.


lightgigantic: "...ad hoc by your definition but not by god's - actually you are begging the question by beginning on the premise "We all know god doesn't exist so his claim to being the cause of all causes is ad hoc" For the purposes of discussion it is better to let ideas stand on their own merit and not beg the question by assuming what is real and what is not real befor e beginning a discussion on what is real...".

The idea of 'evolving god' is ad hoc, because you've put it
forwards only for one special purpose, i.e. to explain away
the 'atheistic clincher'. And therefore, you are the one
whose argument is 'begging the question':
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Briefly, the 'Cause of all Causes' is a false assumption,
because that Super-'Cause' cannot have a cause or causes,
and hence it cannot be justified or explained by your own rules.

 

[AAF]

Precisely the issue with AAF's argument

:m:

This is precisely my ARGUMENT:

Every thing whose concept is contradictory does not exist.
The concept of God is contradictory.
Therefore, God does not exist.

 

[Athiest Hater #1]

Goosh Phrabah, goosh phrabah. Phew. Count to ten... 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... Oh screw it! You new-age Atheist PUNKS come in and screw up the Earth with your depressing? so called "logical analysis" when really your goal tis to gain control over the major powers in the world, and commit GLOBAL GENOCIDE! Think of the children you MONSTERS!

 

[wesmorris]

Atheism -> Logical analysis -> Global genocide?

Huh?

Paranoid much?

 

[thedevilsreject]

Goosh Phrabah, goosh phrabah. Phew. Count to ten... 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... Oh screw it! You new-age Atheist PUNKS come in and screw up the Earth with your depressing? so called "logical analysis" when really your goal tis to gain control over the major powers in the world, and commit GLOBAL GENOCIDE! Think of the children you MONSTERS!

HA dont even get me started on genocide which has come about from religion. you should think before you open you mouth

 

[Athiest Hater #1]

You are a worthless fool. Religion is te key to peace. Atheism in all forms is horrible, and promotes self-gratification, a HORRID practice. Atheists NEED to DIE soon. Or we'll be facing off in WWIII very soon.

 

[thedevilsreject]

You are a worthless fool. Religion is te key to peace. Atheism in all forms is horrible, and promotes self-gratification, a HORRID practice. Atheists NEED to DIE soon. Or we'll be facing off in WWIII very soon.

religion is the very key to the problems facing the world at the moment, the troubles between india and pakistan, isreal and palistine are just a couple of well documented examples. now show me where atheism is causing wars.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "... again, begging the question or alternatively relying in a mundane concept of god. Essentially you have a mundane defintion of God - I have to ask you what is the source that you use to produce your definition of god otherwise its a waste of time trying to establish the truth or falseness of qualities around an object that is not defined...".

You cannot get your argument out of the trouble by
calling the widely known definitions of God 'mundane'
or 'begging the question' and the like.

All important definitions of God, under discussion,
are included here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(monotheism)
And also here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/whatisgod/
They may appear a lot; but they are similar and can
be knocked down with one single blow to their very
concept.


lightgigantic: "... You seem to working under the impression that the living entity has the capacity to become god if we begin to accept the notion of god - if that is true then of course it is very easy to prove that god doesn't exist - but you see that it is declared quite clearly in practically any scripture you care to mention that there is a distinct difference between the living entity (whether conditioned or liberated) and god, just like there is a distinct difference between a father and his son and a fire and an iron rod...".

God is assumed (by you) ad hoc to be the 'cause of all causes'.
But God cannot promote Himself as 'the cause of His cause'.
That is because, God runs into the same contradictions regarding
your wish of fathering yourself at the 'artificial insemination clinic'.
And hence, God is not the 'cause of all causes' as you initially
assumed ad hoc and without any justification whatsoever.

That was and still is my objection to the 'evolving god' assumprion proposed by you to resolve the 'atheistic problem'.


lightgigantic: "... So my question is what is the authority that you draw on that god and the living entity are in the same catergory"?

The above question is misdirected, and should be addressed
to you, lightgigantic. Because you are the one who is arguing
that the evolution of God, in your theory, is the same the
evolution of a human being from a baby to an adult.

So be fair and square and stop trying to get rid of
your false arguments by labeling them as mine.
Because they are not mine.
They are yours forever and ever!

 

[AAF]

Goosh Phrabah, goosh phrabah. Phew. Count to ten... 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6... Oh screw it! You new-age Atheist PUNKS come in and screw up the Earth with your depressing? so called "logical analysis" when really your goal tis to gain control over the major powers in the world, and commit GLOBAL GENOCIDE! Think of the children you MONSTERS!

'... 1... 2... 3... 4... 5... 6...'?
I knew it!
The '6,091' hits, '6,066' hits, '6,660' hits, ...etc.
ARE going to scare the 'DEVIL' out of you, 'Athiest Hater #1'!
Because you believe in this:
http://www.av1611.org/666/

 

[AAF]

You are a worthless fool. Religion is te key to peace. Atheism in all forms is horrible, and promotes self-gratification, a HORRID practice. Atheists NEED to DIE soon. Or we'll be facing off in WWIII very soon.

Hey, 'Wacky Head #1':

This, certainly, scares the 'DEVIL' out of you:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/dantes_inferno/

 

[KennyJC]

You are a worthless fool. Religion is te key to peace. Atheism in all forms is horrible, and promotes self-gratification, a HORRID practice. Atheists NEED to DIE soon. Or we'll be facing off in WWIII very soon.

This is so far from reality it's not true.

It is Islam and American Christians that are at each others throats right now. Atheists are just standing by watching. Secular countries are not the ones waging war.

 

[AAF]

What if space and time are just perception?

Time & space are essential conditions for all perceptions.
No perception is possible in the absence of time & space.
Therefore, space & time are more than perceptions.

Time & space are assences of the most fundamental
and general kind. And because space & time are simple
assences, our peception of them corresponds exactly
to their actual nature, i.e. we perceive space & time
directly and without the interfacing of the senses.

Briefly, space & time are real, simple, clear-cut, and intuitive.

O.K.?

 

[TruthSeeker]

This is so far from reality it's not true.

It is Islam and American Christians that are at each others throats right now. Atheists are just standing by watching. Secular countries are not the ones waging war.

Which secular countries?

No. Bush is in the whole thing for oil and the Muslims are just defending themselves. Religion is just the excuse.

The real cause is greed. And greed is caused by capitalism. Therefore, it is true, indeed that the self-gratification philosophy of materialism (not atheism, necessarily) is causing a whole lot of havoc in the world right now...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Time & space are essential conditions for all perceptions.
No perception is possible in the absence of time & space.
Therefore, space & time are more than perceptions.

Time & space are assences of the most fundamental
and general kind. And because space & time are simple
assences, our peception of them corresponds exactly
to their actual nature, i.e. we perceive space & time
directly and without the interfacing of the senses.

Briefly, space & time are real, simple, clear-cut, and intuitive.

O.K.?

How do you perceive a black hole then? Both outside AND inside.

 

[TruthSeeker]

All of the above must apply to the definitions of God in Taoism.
Have you noticed that?

First of all, Taoism has no god. Secondly, in Taoism, the Tao is not defined.

...
Have you noticed that?

 

[TruthSeeker]

God is assumed (by you) ad hoc to be the 'cause of all causes'.
But God cannot promote Himself as 'the cause of His cause'.
That is because, God runs into the same contradictions regarding
your wish of fathering yourself at the 'artificial insemination clinic'.
And hence, God is not the 'cause of all causes' as you initially
assumed ad hoc and without any justification whatsoever.

There is no "cause of all causes". The idea of a Prima Causa is absurd. There is always something before, causing something. You CANNOT have an effect without a cause. So time should be infinite.