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

[S.A.M.]

Just where did this entertaining little gem come from? Say AH1! Can I be your friend? I'm one of those... you know (shhhh!) *whispers* (atheists).

Can you help me please?

Can you deal with two Muslim friends all at once (Gawk )!!

 

[Weirdomandude]

God is, by definition, an absolute which is impossible to absolutely define. Being an absolute, He holds something infinite within Him.
An infinite anything is a finite everything. When the proposition of creating something out of nothing occurs, my temper rises. If there was EVER an excess of anything within this finite universe, it would continue to grow excessively. It is in mathematical terms a free variable capable of producing whatever outcome desired.
If God is eternal, He may have created the universe because it is all restrained by mechanisms (cause and effect). Without time, God does not view cause and effect but can simply view all factors of a single moment to deduct everything else.
Absolutes are pointless to deal with in argument. If one absolute can occur, then another may exist too and so forth. God is the infinite something which our minds will NEVER (another absolute to hold to God) completely grasp.

 

[Lawdog]

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.

Hi there, try this:

1) God did not create himself: God is uncreated. The essence of God is existance itself. There is only non-void, God is the ground and source of all being, there is no inside or outside of the beingness of God, God is not spacial.

2) God is apart from Time

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

how do you define contradictory?

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.

How do you know so much about infinity, oh ye of finite mind?

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.

i invite you to explain this analogy further, with more clarity if possible.

[/QUOTE]

 

[lightgigantic]

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!

That's right he can, but the point is he has an actual form that is the cause of any other form he may take

:Also, 'eternal' and 'has no other origin' are the same and mere repeated and useless phrases,in this context.

(did you know the english language originally developed as a trade language between nations as opposed to a language for philosophical dilineation???)

eternal means always existing - this is why I gave the example earlier of the sun and the sunshine - they both exist at the same time because you cannot seperate them - but it is recognised that the sun globe has a quality distinct from the sunshine - namely that the sunglobe is the cause of the sunshine. Actually god is not the only thing that is eternal, so is the consciousness of the living entity, the raw elements of material creation, and time itself. The difference between these eternal things and god (who is also eternal) is that god is the cause of these other things - in otherwords just as the sunglobe never appears without sunshine, god never appears alone.

:The same applies to 'the origin of all' and 'the prime cause of all causes'.

The origin of all (or adi in sanskrit - the first) indicates that there is nothing else that is on the same "level" as him (just in case you have ideas of god's position being usurped or tha someone else can manifest a universe) and the cause of all causes indicates that his will is omnipotent (whatever we perceive in terms of effect ultimately owes its cause to god - in otherwords he has the final say). True all the terms are quite similar but they illustrate different aspects of the absolute - when people say "God is great" they really don't know what "great" really means

Anyway I am sure that someone possessed of your incredible skepticism will have a few things to say about this, but to continue ....

: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.

No .... I just said that he created the living entity, the material cosmos and the time factor which are all possessed of the same eternal potency just as the sunshine is eternally the companion of the sun - there is no possibility of seperating the effect(sunshine) from the cause (sun)

:Because your God cannot
be eternal without eternity.

He doesn't have to create it, just like the sun doesn't have to create sunshine - its a natural consequence between the energetic and the energy.
Its not like you have to manufacture wetness out of water
Its not like you have to create heat from fire
Its not like you have to create voltage from electricity
Something that is energetic (or something that is the source of energy) automatically manifests the qualities of energy - that's why you can test the nature of fire with a thermometer or the energy of a powerhouse with a voltage reader.

Saying that god cannot cannot be god without eternity is like saying fire cannot be hot without flames - - It is assumed that when you are talking about a fire that you are talking about a fire with flames since a fire without flames is an absurd imagination. Talking about how god is going to develop the quality of eternity is like talking about how water is going to develop the quality of wetness - It already has the quality, and it is by perceiving the quality that you come to understand the object in the first place!!

 

[the preacher]

That's right he can, but the point is he has an actual form that is the cause of any other form he may take
(did you know the english language originally developed as a trade language between nations as opposed to a language for philosophical dilineation???)
eternal means always existing - this is why I gave the example earlier of the sun and the sunshine - they both exist at the same time because you cannot seperate them - but it is recognised that the sun globe has a quality distinct from the sunshine - namely that the sunglobe is the cause of the sunshine. Actually god is not the only thing that is eternal, so is the consciousness of the living entity, the raw elements of material creation, and time itself. The difference between these eternal things and god (who is also eternal) is that god is the cause of these other things - in otherwords just as the sunglobe never appears without sunshine, god never appears alone.
The origin of all (or adi in sanskrit - the first) indicates that there is nothing else that is on the same "level" as him (just in case you have ideas of god's position being usurped or tha someone else can manifest a universe) and the cause of all causes indicates that his will is omnipotent (whatever we perceive in terms of effect ultimately owes its cause to god - in otherwords he has the final say). True all the terms are quite similar but they illustrate different aspects of the absolute - when people say "God is great" they really don't know what "great" really means
Anyway I am sure that someone possessed of your incredible skepticism will have a few things to say about this, but to continue ....
No .... I just said that he created the living entity, the material cosmos and the time factor which are all possessed of the same eternal potency just as the sunshine is eternally the companion of the sun - there is no possibility of seperating the effect(sunshine) from the cause (sun)
He doesn't have to create it, just like the sun doesn't have to create sunshine - its a natural consequence between the energetic and the energy.
Its not like you have to manufacture wetness out of water
Its not like you have to create heat from fire
Its not like you have to create voltage from electricity
Something that is energetic (or something that is the source of energy) automatically manifests the qualities of energy - that's why you can test the nature of fire with a thermometer or the energy of a powerhouse with a voltage reader.
Saying that god cannot cannot be god without eternity is like saying fire cannot be hot without flames - - It is assumed that when you are talking about a fire that you are talking about a fire with flames since a fire without flames is an absurd imagination. Talking about how god is going to develop the quality of eternity is like talking about how water is going to develop the quality of wetness - It already has the quality, and it is by perceiving the quality that you come to understand the object in the first place!!

ROTFLMAO, need anything else be said.
you are an endless source of merriment, beyond hilarious.

 

[lightgigantic]

ROTFLMAO, need anything else be said.
you are an endless source of merriment, beyond hilarious.

Must be the blissful nature of the spiritual world influencing you, after all you just refered to it as "beyond hilarious" -

 

[the preacher]

Must be the blissful nature of the spiritual world influencing you, after all you just refered to it as "beyond hilarious" -

for the delusional maybe, I think of beyond to mean: On the far side of; past or Later than; after.

for want of a better word.

perhaps I could use, uproarious, priceless, mirthful, frolicsome, rollicking, or even convivial, but no alas, your funnier then those, I'm sorry, I'll have to stick to beyond hilarious.

 

[AAF]

Can you deal with two Muslim friends all at once (Gawk )!!

I suppose (D.H.R.) can do it!

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "God is the cause of all causes and has a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss...".

The big problem, here, is that the idea of 'cause of all causes'
is contradictory. And it's always illogical and contradictory;
and can never be made coherent and logically consistent.
Consequently, any definition of God based on your 'cause of
all causes' is contradictory, fatally so, and its supposed
entity (your God), therefore, could not and cannot exist.


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

That would be true in the case of classifying plants and animals.
http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/education/taxonomy.htm

But it is not true in the case of defining God.
Because God is the only one of His kind, no
'Kingdom', no 'Phylum', no 'Class', no 'Order', no
'Family', no 'Genus', and no 'Species' are needed
for defining Him.


lightgigantic: "...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".

You didn't say 'God is finite' explicitly.
You said it implicitly by using key phrases
such as 'god's qualities are ever expanding',
'Evolving God', 'God's ability gets greater and greater',
and so on. Those statements make sense only if the
infinity of God is potential, not actual, and therefore,
your 'Actual God' must be finite.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "God is the cause of all causes and has a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss...".

The big problem, here, is that the idea of 'cause of all causes'
is contradictory. And it's always illogical and contradictory;
and can never be made coherent and logically consistent.
Consequently, any definition of God based on your 'cause of
all causes' is contradictory, fatally so, and its supposed
entity (your God), therefore, could not and cannot exist.


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

That would be true in the case of classifying plants and animals.
http://nmml.afsc.noaa.gov/education/taxonomy.htm

But it is not true in the case of defining God.
Because God is the only one of His kind, no
'Kingdom', no 'Phylum', no 'Class', no 'Order', no
'Family', no 'Genus', and no 'Species' are needed
for defining Him.


lightgigantic: "...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".

You didn't say 'God is finite' explicitly.
You said it implicitly by using key phrases
such as 'god's qualities are ever expanding',
'Evolving God', 'God's ability gets greater and greater',
and so on. Those statements make sense only if the
infinity of God is potential, not actual, and therefore,
your 'Actual God' must be finite.

Well for what you say to be correct you would have to find the finite limits of god - if even god cannot come to the limits of his own potencies who else can?

Cause of all causes is only a proplem if you are working out of the paradigm of an impersonal universe

We belong to the same catergory of god (the living entity is conscious and so is god) there are also indications that the living entity is eternal too (so is god) - so there are distinctions of particulars between god and the living entity - what you are trying to do with your definition of god is similar to not going any further than looking for greeness as a means to classify plants that can photosynthesis (in other word s you miss out on a whole realm of variety)

 

[Hapsburg]

Something cannot be eternal. Matter and antimatter both break down over time. The only thing that doesn't is energy, so either "god" is an all-energy being or it exists outside of physical reality. Both of which are impossible.

 

[lightgigantic]

Something cannot be eternal. Matter and antimatter both break down over time. The only thing that doesn't is energy, so either "god" is an all-energy being or it exists outside of physical reality. Both of which are impossible.

Then it raises the question of how there can be energy without there being a source to the energy.

Actually with or without god you are looking at a universe that is eternal because you are still left with the question where did the primary matter/anti matter of the universe come from (unless it has always been there)

 

[c7ityi_]

The universe is a great living organism, we are small organisms in this big body of Christ.

Actually with or without god you are looking at a universe that is eternal because you are still left with the question where did the primary matter/anti matter of the universe come from (unless it has always been there)

It has always been there, that's why it's there now!

 

[AAF]

Hi Weirdomandude:

Weirdomandude: "God is, by definition, an absolute which is impossible to absolutely define. Being an absolute, He holds something infinite within Him...".

Actually, it is much easier to define 'absolutes' than 'non-absolutes'. Because the notions of 'absolute' tend to be simple and independent of other concepts. Consider, for example, the absolutes
listed here: http://www.selfknowledge.com/400.htm
They are all easy to define and deal with, and so is God.

Weirdomandude: "...An infinite anything is a finite everything. When the proposition of creating something out of nothing occurs, my temper rises. If there was EVER an excess of anything within this finite universe, it would continue to grow excessively. It is in mathematical terms a free variable capable of producing whatever outcome desired....".

No, 'infinite' is not a 'finite everything'.
It's an infinite number of 'finite everything' of the same kind.


Weirdomandude: "...If God is eternal, He may have created the universe because it is all restrained by mechanisms (cause and effect). Without time, God does not view cause and effect but can simply view all factors of a single moment to deduct everything else....".

God cannot be eternal without eternity.
And eternity is time on a gigantic scale.


Weirdomandude: "...Absolutes are pointless to deal with in argument. If one absolute can occur, then another may exist too and so forth. God is the infinite something which our minds will NEVER (another absolute to hold to God) completely grasp".

Again, 'absolutes' are very straightforward and so easy
to deal with in any argument.
Besides, the idea of 'God' is the sole creation of 'our minds'.
And therefore, we can completely grasp it, or better yet, dispose
of it out of hand.

 

[Jan Ardena]

AAF,

And you believe this definition of your Deity is superb, logical, and can withstand any criticism.
Right?

...and it's full of contradictions of all sorts.

Saying so, doesn't make it so.
Try explaining them.

Belief has nothing to do with it, and you are completely incapable of constructive critisism, regarding this text.

First of all, the above definition of God is the standard definition in almost
every type of theology,

Can you cite any other scripture where the Body of God is described?

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!

What exactly does that mean?
Can you give some detail?

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'.

This is your personal opinion, and as colourful and cute as it is, it only repeats the same and useless phrases in this context.
Please explain why the points you mentioned are "the same"?

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.

Now you consider this.
He didn't say that.
ThAT is your inferance, one which is necessary for you to house your anti-God zeal.
Why don't you argue the actual point?

Because your God cannot
be eternal without eternity. And therefore, your God was not and is not the origin of eternity.

WTF are talking about?

And by implication, your God is neither 'the origin of all' nor 'the prime cause of all causes'.

Why not just admit you don't really understand the texts, and be done?
What use is your pride?

Accordingly, your definition of God is contradictory and cannot withstand
logical analysis.

Obviously not your type of logic, the basis of which is a firm, irrational belief that God can not exist because you don't want Him to.

What a shame! Your 'Brahma Sanhita' sounds good to me!

It really is, you should study it and try to learn something.

jAN.

 

[AAF]

Hi Jan:


Jan Ardena: "Saying so, doesn't make it so.Try explaining them. Belief has nothing to do with it, and you are completely incapable of constructive critisism, regarding this text...".

They have been explained countless times right from here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=22326
By the way, 'BELIEF' is the king around here and has everything
to do with it.
Also, 'CRITICISM' necessarily contains destructive elements and
constructive elements in it. And that is the way it is!

Jan Ardena: "...Can you cite any other scripture where the Body of God is described?...".

Check this out!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/spirit.html

Jan Ardena: "...What exactly does that mean? Can you give some detail?...".

It means exactly what it says!
The 'BODY of God' is not a necessary assumption to make in
any theological debate about the nature of God. Because you can
only guess how God looks like. And because God has the ability to
change His appearances at will.


Jan Ardena: "...This is your personal opinion, and as colourful and cute as it is, it only repeats the same and useless phrases in this context.
Please explain why the points you mentioned are "the same"?...".

Thank you, 'colourful and cute ONE'!
Those phrases are useless repetitions and add little or nothing at all
in the context of defining God. And they are not mine.
They are written in the 'Brahma Sanhita'.
O.K.?


Jan Ardena: "...Now you consider this. He didn't say that.
ThAT is your inferance, one which is necessary for you to house your anti-God zeal. Why don't you argue the actual point?..."

He told me that he translated 'ETERNAL' from
the 'Brahma Sanhita'. And I trust him!
Furthermore, the deduction that 'God cannot be eternal
without eternity' is absolutely necessary and logically true
by its very nature, even though your 'pro-God zeal' clouds your
mind and prevents you from seeing that logical necessity.


Jan Ardena: "...WTF are talking about?...".

I told you so!
your 'pro-God zeal' clouds your judgement, blinds your insight,
and prevents you from seeing the absolute logical necessity of the
statement that 'Because your God cannot be eternal
without eternity. And therefore, your God was not and is not the
origin of eternity'.


Jan Ardena: "...Why not just admit you don't really understand the texts, and be done? What use is your pride?...".

What texts?
The definition that 'lightgigantic' translated from the 'Brahma Sanhita'?
Why do you think that very simple definition is very difficult?
Certainly that definition of God is contradictory and cannot withstand
logical analysis.

 

[lightgigantic]

Hi Jan:


Jan Ardena: "Saying so, doesn't make it so.Try explaining them. Belief has nothing to do with it, and you are completely incapable of constructive critisism, regarding this text...".

They have been explained countless times right from here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=22326
By the way, 'BELIEF' is the king here and has everything to do with it.
Also, 'CRITICISM' necessarily contains destructive elements and
constructive elements in it. And that is the way it is!

I think the point is that your criticism is neither constructive or destructive because you don't actually address the issue.

Jan Ardena: "...Can you cite any other scripture where the Body of God is described?...".

Check this out!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/spirit.html

Checked out the link - if you want to add it to your theory you would have to come up with some evidence that bodies cannot be spiritual (as well as material)- it just said that god has no flesh and bones - Do you think god's body stinks like yours? Actually the link backs up our claims more, after all god has an eternal body of knowledge and bliss, not a temporary abode of ignorance and misery like ours - god doesn't have flesh? You don't say ......

Jan Ardena: "...What exactly does that mean? Can you give some detail?...".

It means exactly what it says!
The 'BODY of God' is not a necessary assumption to make in
any theological debate about the nature of God. Because you can
only guess how God looks like. And because God has the ability to
change His appearances at will.

Who's guessing? I am quoting scripture.

Jan Ardena: "...This is your personal opinion, and as colourful and cute as it is, it only repeats the same and useless phrases in this context.
Please explain why the points you mentioned are "the same"?...".

Thank you, 'colourful and cute ONE'!
Those phrases are useless repetitions and add little or nothing at all
in the context of defining God. And they are not mine.
They are written in the 'Brahma Sanhita'.
O.K.?


Jan Ardena: "...Now you consider this. He didn't say that.
ThAT is your inferance, one which is necessary for you to house your anti-God zeal. Why don't you argue the actual point?..."

He told me that he translated 'ETERNAL' from
the 'Brahma Sanhita'. And I trust him!
Furthermore, the deduction that 'God cannot be eternal
without eternity' is absolutely necessary and logically true
by its very nature, even though your 'pro-God zeal' clouds your
mind and prevents you from seeing that logical necessity.

I previously wrote a whole paragraph about the foolishness of seperating eternity from god (which you didn't even respond to - I guess that's what make us think you don't undersatnd)- its just like saying water cannot be water without being wet or fire cannot be fire without being hot etc etc - Your demands for seperating god from eternity are just like a demand for seperating the sunshine from the sun - How do you propose to seperate the qualities which indicate an object?

Jan Ardena: "...WTF are talking about?...".

I told you so!
your 'pro-God zeal' clouds your judgement, blinds your insight,
and prevents you from seeing the absolute logical necessity of the
statement that 'Because your God cannot be eternal
without eternity.

..... for reasons still unclear

And therefore, your God was not and is not the
origin of eternity

'.

Jan Ardena: "...Why not just admit you don't really understand the texts, and be done? What use is your pride?...".

What texts?
The definition that 'lightgigantic' translated from the 'Brahma Sanhita'?
Why do you think that very simple definition is very difficult?
Certainly that definition of God is contradictory and cannot withstand
logical analysis.

Logical analysis? Analysis of what? All you've stated is that god created eternity (which I said is the same way that fire creates heat). I don't see how that is a contradiction - on the other hand your description of god creating eternity like a wrist watch or something is a contradiction just as a fire without heat is a contradiction - your problem is that you apply a mundane concept of creation to god - in other words the reason you conceive of god as a contradiction is that you conceive of a mundane definition of god.

 

[AAF]

Hi Lawdog:

Lawdog: "Hi there, try this:
1) God did not create himself: God is uncreated. The essence of God is existence itself. There is only non-void, God is the ground and source of all being, there is no inside or outside of the beingness of God, God is not spacial. 2) God is apart from Time...".

If your 'GOD' is 'existence itself', then how can He be
apart from time? Existence is absolutely meaningless without
time. And therefore, existence always requires time.


Lawdog: "...how do you define contradictory?...".

That is very simple. Click & see!
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Contradiction.html

Lawdog: "...How do you know so much about infinity, oh ye of finite mind?...".

By thinking about it, 'oh ye of lazy mind'!


Lawdog: "...i invite you to explain this analogy further, with more clarity if possible...".

That is not an analogy. That is the real thing!
Here it is:
Time is composed of all possible rates and paces
of flow, from the infinitely large (the rate of moments), to
the infinitely small (the rate of eternity), all at once.

Is that clear?

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "I think the point is that your criticism is neither constructive or destructive because you don't actually address the issue...".

He was, clearly, trying to create a 'straw-man' agrument, just like yours!


lightgigantic: "...Checked out the link - if you want to add it to your theory you would have to come up with some evidence that bodies cannot be spiritual (as well as material)- it just said that god has no flesh and bones - Do you think god's body stinks like yours? Actually the link backs up our claims more, after all god has an eternal body of knowledge and bliss, not a temporary abode of ignorance and misery like ours - god doesn't have flesh? You don't say ......".

Why should I come with it?
You are the one who supposes that 'the body of God is spiritual
(as well as material)'. Come up with some evidence for it!
Also, why do you not think that 'god's body stinks like yours'?
Your God has no girlfriend (Godess) to smell Him out!

 

[lightgigantic]

lost para

AAF you are working under the idea that spiritual things don't have form and that only material things have form - anyway, you are way out of your league, since you don't even grant any concession to spiritual existence to begin with, so I don't know how you will respond to that .....

Like for instance you didn't even catch that the idea is that god has a body that is not material to begin with - this is of course an impossible concept for a gross materialist to ruminate on

You are right though, your understanding of god is a contradiction, but that's only because you begin with an incomplete concept of god and assume that nobody is more advanced in the realisation of god than yourself. Its like someone trying to declare X as a false but then they don't have a proper grasp on X to begin with due to a lack of qualification.