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

[lightgigantic]

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.

I read those definitions but they are the definitions of academics and not praticioners - in other words the definitions include EVERYTHING that ANYONE thinks falls under the banner of monotheism but contain many contradictions - no wonder you are having a field day by proving god is a contradiction by working with such a definition!!!!

For instance suppose I say the president doesn't really exist. I define the president as male, american and george bush (3 qualities). If I work with 2 of those definitions (male and american) I can prove that the president doesn't exist because there are millions of american men who are not the president

- similarly you can prove god is a contradiction if you focus on minor qualities and ignore or relegate superior qualities to imagination or obscurity - If you want to say that an impersonal or incomplete god is a god of contradictions I will agree with you (after all its an incomplete picture) but if you want to say that a personal god is a contradiction(meaning a god that has a locatable source - just like daytime is not just sunshine but the location of the sun globe, therefore personal) - well then there's a problem
it behooves you to work with a definition of personal god (at least when discussing monotheism), just as if you want to prove something about the president it behooves you to work with the personal definition of the president (and not just focus on his birth details etc).

So here is a personal description of god from the Brahma Sanhita (5.1)

which translates as
He has an eternal, blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, and He is the prime cause of all causes.

in otherwords the following is your speculation - at the very least you don't rely on scripture to define god, so what is the value of your definition of god?

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.

The justification is scripture - I mean where else is anyone, especially an atheist, going to get a definition?
Other parts in scripture declare that god, the living entity (the soul distinct from the body - the body belongs to material nature in the way of atoms etc), time and the material creation are all eternal but that god is the cause of them all? How can one eternal thing be the cause of another eternal thing?
-- it is just like seperating the sunshine from the sun - we seperate it by definition - like we say "the sun is in the room" but we mean that actually the sunlight is in the room and not the sun globe - but even though epistomologically you can seperate the sun from sunshine, ontologically you cannot - it is not possible to seperate the sunshine from the sun even though they are seperate phenomena of cause and effect. Just as there is no question of the sunshine developing in to another sun that could compete and overthrow the sun, there is also no question of the living entity evolving into a god to dethrone god (although I am sure that many a conditioned soul may entertain the idea)

It is not that if god is the cause of all causes he is a contradiction - if god is not the cause of all causes then he is a contradiction because he is dependant on something external and has no claim to the title of god. Its almost like you are trying to bully theistic thought to a lesser definition so that it can make your task as an atheist easier.

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.

Maybe I am not being clear enough - the baby to an adult was an ANALOGY - I repeat - god and the living entity are not the same just as when you say "he can run as fast as a horse" doesn't mean you should put a bridle on him - You were saying that a god that increases his potency would suffer a destruction of self - I pointed out that there is no logic for that statement because even people (who are defined as less superior compared to god)don't experience a destruction of the self by becoming more happy or more intelligent (sure people die - but nobody has ever died due to an excess of happiness, unless it is drug related - people die due to the body, which is a seperate phenomena - check out the quote of Brahma samhita that says that god has an eternal body) - I can also provide tons of scriptural quotes that say the living entity and god are essentially different but that should be quite obvious

 

[leopold]

where is this god everybody says exists?
why hasn't anyone ever seen any true miracles?

 

[AAF]

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

Both, also, are outside and inside your HEAD!
What difference does that make?

 

[AAF]

where is this god everybody says exists?
why hasn't anyone ever seen any true miracles?

Hi leopold99:

That is one of the major objections to
the supposition of God.

How, on earth, can a SUPREME BEING, who is the
' Ultimate', the 'summum bonum', the 'Absolute Infinite',
the 'Transcendent', and the 'Highest Deity' of the monotheistic,
and pantheistic religions, hide and keep hiding Himself from
His loving worshippers and crazed admirers like a DESPERADO
or a FUGITIVE from justice?

Why is He hiding His face?
Is He shy?
Is He embarrassed?
Or is He simply NOT there?
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/friedrich_nietzsche_quotes.html

 

[AAF]

First of all, Taoism has no god. Secondly, in Taoism, the Tao is not defined....Have you noticed that?

As a religion, Taoism does have gods.
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/religion/taoism/system.htm
http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/world/taoism.htm

Furthermore, the Tao is defined by Laotzu as
"the universal and eternal principle which forms and conditions everything; it is that intangible cosmic influence which harmonizes all things and brings them to fruition; it is the norm and standard of truth and morality". Also Laotzu "did more than entertain an intelligent opinion of Tao as a creative principle; he had a devout and religious sentiment towards it: "He loved the Tao as a son cherishes and reveres his mother".......".
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/ltw2/ltw201.htm

As a philosophy, however, Taoism is close to
but not as clear and interesting as the philosophy of the
ancient Greek, Anaximander of Miletus.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anaximan.htm

Have you noticed that?

 

[lightgigantic]

Hi leopold99:

That is one of the major objections to
the supposition of God.

How, on earth, can a SUPREME BEING, who is the
' Ultimate', the 'summum bonum', the 'Absolute Infinite',
the 'Transcendent', and the 'Highest Deity' of the monotheistic,
and pantheistic religions, hide and keep hiding Himself from
His loving worshippers and crazed admirers like a DESPERADO
or a FUGITIVE from justice?

Why is He hiding His face?
Is He shy?
Is He embarrassed?
Or is He simply NOT there?
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/friedrich_nietzsche_quotes.html

you could use the same fallacious logic to establish that george bush doesn't exist and its all just media hype and animated reconstruction that gives us "george bush" and that th e very notion of th e president of the united states is bogus. If someone in america has never heard or seen george bush before it doesn't affect george bush

 

[TruthSeeker]

As a religion, Taoism does have gods.
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/religion/taoism/system.htm
http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/world/taoism.htm

Furthermore, the Tao is defined by Laotzu as
"the universal and eternal principle which forms and conditions everything; it is that intangible cosmic influence which harmonizes all things and brings them to fruition; it is the norm and standard of truth and morality". Also Laotzu "did more than entertain an intelligent opinion of Tao as a creative principle; he had a devout and religious sentiment towards it: "He loved the Tao as a son cherishes and reveres his mother".......".
http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/ltw2/ltw201.htm

As a philosophy, however, Taoism is close to
but not as clear and interesting as the philosophy of the
ancient Greek, Anaximander of Miletus.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anaximan.htm

Have you noticed that?

The Tao is way beyond the regular concept of god. Altough Tao=Jehovah, the concept of god has been extremely modified over millenia. The original concept is way more ethereal and philosophical.

 

[TruthSeeker]

From your link...

"There are three key words in the thought of Laotzu: Tao, Teh, and Wu Wei. They are all difficult to translate. The simple meaning of Tao is "way," but it also has a wide variety of other meanings. Dr. Paul Carus translates it, "Reason," but apologizes for so doing. If forced to offer a translation we would suggest Creative Principle, but much prefer to leave it untranslated."

 

[TruthSeeker]

I rather call Tao the "unthinkable"...

 

[TruthSeeker]

As a philosophy, however, Taoism is close to
but not as clear and interesting as the philosophy of the
ancient Greek, Anaximander of Miletus.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anaximan.htm

Have you noticed that?

Well, I must say that guy is fucking intelligent. Philosophy could have stopped there and arrived somewhere. Why nobody talks of him?

Anyways... I read about the Boundless and from what I read I can easily say that "the Boundless"="the Tao"!

 

[TruthSeeker]

As a religion, Taoism does have gods.
http://www.travelchinaguide.com/intro/religion/taoism/system.htm
http://www.reachouttrust.org/articles/world/taoism.htm

The same crap that was done with Christianism. No- Taosim has no gods. Not even ONCE Lao Tzu mentioned gods.

 

[AAF]

Well, I must say that guy is fucking intelligent. Philosophy could have stopped there and arrived somewhere. Why nobody talks of him? Anyways... I read about the Boundless and from what I read I can easily say that "the Boundless"="the Tao"!

Many people 'talk of him'.
Look at this!
http://www.redshift.vif.com/
His name is on the cover of that journal.

 

[wsionynw]

If you look at Occam's Razor, it says the simplest solution is the preferred one. IMO, millions of years of chance evolution that someone mysteriously resulted in simple life that slowly evolved into complex humans is much more complicated than the idea of one omnicient Creator.

I disagree. There is no evidence for a creator, there is tons of evidence to support evolution, therefore the theory of the creator is least likely to be true.
Richard Attenborough said something along the lines of "A theory (the creator) that explains everything, actually explains nothing".

 

[AAF]

you could use the same fallacious logic to establish that george bush doesn't exist and its all just media hype and animated reconstruction that gives us "george bush" and that th e very notion of th e president of the united states is bogus. If someone in america has never heard or seen george bush before it doesn't affect george bush

Your analogy is wrong.
President (G.W.B.) is very real.

And you should call him the American Socrates, who fools his enemies
in seeing weakness, and then he beats the 'DEVIL' out of them!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#Socratic_method

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "I read those definitions but they are the definitions of academics and not praticioners - in other words the definitions include EVERYTHING that ANYONE thinks falls under the banner of monotheism but contain many contradictions - no wonder you are having a field day by proving god is a contradiction by working with such a definition!!!!...".

Every definition of 'God' contains fatal contradictions.
So give us your own definition of God.
And I promise you that I shall find at least one fatal
conradiction in that definition in less than one minute!

lightgigantic: "...For instance suppose I say the president doesn't really exist. I define the president as male, american and george bush (3 qualities). If I work with 2 of those definitions (male and american) I can prove that the president doesn't exist because there are millions of american men who are not the president...".

No, you can't do that.
You have to start looking from the particulars,
i.e. first name, famility name, residence, winner of last
Presidential Election, ...etc.


lightgigantic: "...- similarly you can prove god is a contradiction if you focus on minor qualities and ignore or relegate superior qualities to imagination or obscurity - If you want to say that an impersonal or incomplete god is a god of contradictions I will agree with you (after all its an incomplete picture) but if you want to say that a personal god is a contradiction(meaning a god that has a locatable source - just like daytime is not just sunshine but the location of the sun globe, therefore personal) - well then there's a problem it behooves you to work with a definition of personal god (at least when discussing monotheism), just as if you want to prove something about the president it behooves you to work with the personal definition of the president (and not just focus on his birth details etc)...".

I said this before, and I say this now!
Any being, who does not have infinite ability and power,
can never be defined as God.
It seems you think that if some being starts from finite ability,
and approaches infinity forever, then that being will eventually
achieve infinite ability. But that is wrong. Because, no matter
how big his approach is, it will be always exactly equal to zero
in comparison with infinite ability.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Many people 'talk of him'.
Look at this!
http://www.redshift.vif.com/
His name is on the cover of that journal.

I had never heard of him before. And I practically hunt for philosophers.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "I read those definitions but they are the definitions of academics and not praticioners - in other words the definitions include EVERYTHING that ANYONE thinks falls under the banner of monotheism but contain many contradictions - no wonder you are having a field day by proving god is a contradiction by working with such a definition!!!!...".

Every definition of 'God' contains fatal contradictions.
So give us your own definition of God.
And I promise you that I shall find at least one fatal
conradiction in that definition in less than one minute!

God is the cause of all causes and has a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss

lightgigantic: "...For instance suppose I say the president doesn't really exist. I define the president as male, american and george bush (3 qualities). If I work with 2 of those definitions (male and american) I can prove that the president doesn't exist because there are millions of american men who are not the president...".

No, you can't do that.
You have to start looking from the particulars,
i.e. first name, famility name, residence, winner of last
Presidential Election, ...etc.

That's the point, you don't start with the particulars, - you start with the general and proceed from there in your definition

lightgigantic: "...- similarly you can prove god is a contradiction if you focus on minor qualities and ignore or relegate superior qualities to imagination or obscurity - If you want to say that an impersonal or incomplete god is a god of contradictions I will agree with you (after all its an incomplete picture) but if you want to say that a personal god is a contradiction(meaning a god that has a locatable source - just like daytime is not just sunshine but the location of the sun globe, therefore personal) - well then there's a problem it behooves you to work with a definition of personal god (at least when discussing monotheism), just as if you want to prove something about the president it behooves you to work with the personal definition of the president (and not just focus on his birth details etc)...".

I said this before, and I say this now!
Any being, who does not have infinite ability and power,
can never be defined as God.
It seems you think that if some being starts from finite ability,
and approaches infinity forever, then that being will eventually
achieve infinite ability. But that is wrong. Because, no matter
how big his approach is, it will be always exactly equal to zero
in comparison to infinite ability.

I don't know where you get the idea that I said god is finite - you are the one who paints a picture of god as finite- actually I said that god's qualities are ever expanding - if a person had an infinite number of tongues and spoke for an infinite number of days they would never be able to come to the end of describing god's qualities because they are constantly expanding.

 

[Sarkus]

...if a person had an infinite number of tongues and spoke for an infinite number of days they would never be able to come to the end of describing god's qualities because they are constantly expanding.

But would they ever be as big as the person's mouth would have to be to hold all those tongues???

 

[the preacher]

God is the cause of all causes and has a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss
That's the point, you don't start with the particulars, - you start with the general and proceed from there in your definition
I don't know where you get the idea that I said god is finite - you are the one who paints a picture of god as finite- actually I said that god's qualities are ever expanding - if a person had an infinite number of tongues and spoke for an infinite number of days they would never be able to come to the end of describing god's qualities because they are constantly expanding.

I recently said that woody was still wearing the jesters crown, well he's lost it.
that honour is now yours, some of the things woody has said have made my side split, he is hilarious.
but now sir, for jocular entertainment, I shall only read your posts, you are beyond hilarious.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "...So here is a personal description of god from the Brahma Sanhita (5.1) which translates as He has an eternal, blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, and He is the prime cause of all causes...".

So your definition of God is 'He has an eternal, blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin, and He is the prime cause of all causes'. And you believe this definition of your Deity is superb, logical, and can withstand any criticism.
Right?

First of all, the above definition of God is the standard definition in almost
every type of theology, and it's full of contradictions of all sorts.
However, the assumption of 'blissful spiritual body' is redundant and
un-necessary from logical standpoint. He is God; and He can have any kind
of bodies at His fingertip!

Also, 'eternal' and 'has no other origin' are the same and mere repeated and useless phrases,in this context.
The same applies to 'the origin of all' and 'the prime cause of all causes'.

Now, consider this!
When you say that your God is eternal, you are saying at the same time that
your God neither created nor caused eternity. Because your God cannot
be eternal without eternity. And therefore, your God was not and is not the origin of eternity. And by implication, your God is neither 'the origin of all' nor 'the prime cause of all causes'.
Accordingly, your definition of God is contradictory and cannot withstand
logical analysis.
What a shame! Your 'Brahma Sanhita' sounds good to me!