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

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "...Who's guessing? I am quoting scripture...".

But those who wrote your 'scripture' were only guessing
about how God looks like.
Right?


lightgigantic: "...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?...".

You can't get out of this!

On one hand, if you suppose that your God created eternity,
then you will have a blatant and fatal contradiction, because
your God cannot be eternal without eternity.

On the other hand, if you assume that your God did not create
eternity, then you will contradict the second assumption of your
scripture's definition that 'God is the cause of all causes'.

It is not possible for you to solve this Big Problem of yours by using the
analogies of 'the sun & its sunshine' and 'the tree & its green colour'.
That is because neither the 'sunshine' is a necessary and
basic condition for the existence of the sun, nor the 'green colour'
is an essential and fundamental requirement for the existence of the tree.

But eternity is an absolute condition that must be there first, before
your God or any other God, or any other thing, can exist or even can
be supposed to exist.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "...for reasons still unclear...".

Are you really unable to see the absolute truth
of the following very simple statement?

Your God is unable to exist in the
absence of ETERNITY.


lightgigantic: "...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".

You see!
Your argument starts to lose coherence.

It's the logical analysis of your scripture's definition of your God.
Did you forget?

Your definition says clearly that your God is the 'origin of all' & the
'cause of all causes', which means your Deity created everything,
including eternity. You cannot avoid the contradictory implicatons of
that definition by resorting to the above analogy of 'fire & heat'.
That is because eternity is an absolute condition, which must be met
and satifsied first, before your God or any other God, or any other being,
or any other thing, can exist or even can be supposed to exist in any way.

O.K.?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "...Who's guessing? I am quoting scripture...".

But those who wrote your 'scripture' were only guessing
about how God looks like.
Right?

No. What makes you think they were guessing? Because they are indicating a phenomena that you are not aware of? Just because it is a guess for you doesn't mean it is a guess for everyone in all times and places.

lightgigantic: "...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?...".

You can't get out of this!

On one hand, if you suppose that your God created eternity,
then you will have a blatant and fatal contradiction, because
your God cannot be eternal without eternity.

On the other hand, if you assume that your God did not create
eternity, then you will contradict the second assumption of your
scripture's definition that 'God is the cause of all causes'.

It is not possible for you to solve this Big Problem of yours by using the
analogies of 'the sun & its sunshine' and 'the tree & its green colour'.
That is because neither the 'sunshine' is a necessary and
basic condition for the existence of the sun, nor the 'green colour'
is an essential and fundamental requirement for the existence of the tree.


But eternity is an absolute condition that must be there first, before
your God or any other God, or any other thing, can exist or even can
be supposed to exist.

To take this any further you would have to give an example of fire that is without heat or a sun planet without sunshine.
God is called the cause of all causes just as the sun planet is the cause of the sunshine. Its not like the sunshine caused the sun and it is not like eternity caused god. You just don't have a very firm grasp on the phenomena of god.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "...for reasons still unclear...".

Are you really unable to see the absolute truth
of the following very simple statement?

Your God is unable to exist in the
absence of ETERNITY.

You don't say .... just like the sun planet is not able to exist without sunshine, but even if there was some phenomena that could suck away the sunshine, like say a black hole, the sun would not be impaired any in its ability to be the cause of sunshine - you actually have your words mixed around - it should read Eternity is unable to exist in the
absence of GOD. BTW - why talk of my god? Are we talking ofmy sun ?

lightgigantic: "...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".

You see!
Your argument starts to lose coherence.

It's the logical analysis of your scripture's definition of your God.
Did you forget?

Your definition says clearly that your God is the 'origin of all' & the
'cause of all causes', which means your Deity created everything,
including eternity. You cannot avoid the contradictory implicatons of
that definition by resorting to the above analogy of 'fire & heat'.
That is because eternity is an absolute condition, which must be met
and satifsied first, before your God or any other God, or any other being,
or any other thing, can exist or even can be supposed to exist in any way.

O.K.?

Well this is your speculation saying that eternity must come before god (after all the definition of god is that he is the cause of all causes, so why does that exclude being the cause of eternity? Just because eternity doesn't emanate from us does that mean eternity doesn't emanate from god?)- again I repeat - it is due to a mundane concept of god that you can pursue your logic - you imagine god to be mundane and has an appearance caught in temporal affairs like our mortal selves. Its just like I lay a condition that the sun must produce light before it exists as a globe - its a totally muddled perspective of cause and effect - from our position it may appear as though the sunlight is the all in all (since we receive the effect rather than the cause), but by a little extrapolilation one can undersatnd that the sun globe is the cause and the sunlight is the effect

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "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 ....".

Whether they have a 'form' or not, that is not important.

The focus here is on the definition of God given by you
early in this discussion. I've pointed out that the assumption
of 'blissful spiritual body' included in your definition is redundant,
because it's just a guess made by the ancient writers of your scriptures,
and because your God can change His appearance at will.

So the contradiction, in your scriptures' definition, is not between
the spiritual and the non-spiritual. The fatal contradiction is between
the 'eternal' and the 'cause of all causes'. Briefly,
your God cannot be eternal and the cause of all causes at the same time.

Therefore, you have to choose either the 'eternal' or the 'cause of all causes'
but not both, in your definition of God.


lightgigantic: "...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...".

Once again, the body of your God is redundant and useless and has
no bearing whatsoever on this issue from the standpoint of logic and
reason. So keep the body of your Deity for yourself, and concentrate,
instead, on the basic contradictions and absurdities in your God's definition.

Bear in mind:
Your God cannot exist without eternity at all.
But eternity can, perfectly, exist without your God.


lightgigantic: "...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".

The concept of God, under discussion, is the concept given by you.
And so if it's incomplete, then the blame is on you and your scriptures.

Right?

 

[AAF]

...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 .......

If your body is stinking and miserable, then your God
did a very poor job in creating you!
Why did a Deity with 'blissful & spiritual body'
put the soul of His own creation (you) inside a
'temporary abode of ignorance and misery' like your
flesh-and-bones body?

So, respect and take care of your own BODY!
Because, it's the only body you can have.
Follow in the footsteps of the marvelous Christians,
and always tell yourself:
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-27.htm

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: "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 ....".

Whether they have a 'form' or not, that is not important.

Well you are the one who is struggling with the idea of how god can have a form - because you don't have the knowledgable foundation of how spiritual things can have form - in other words you have an incomplete understanding of god and are using that as a basis for your ideas

The focus here is on the definition of God given by you
early in this discussion.

An integral part of that discussion is that god has a form.

I've pointed out that the assumption
of 'blissful spiritual body' included in your definition is redundant,
because it's just a guess made by the ancient writers of your scriptures,
and because your God can change His appearance at will.

lol - I don't know how merely stating your opinion made it redundant - As I said before, it may be a guess for you but then who are you in regards to spiritual knowledge?
You are assuming that scripture is a concoction but that is your concoction - but for the purposes of this thread you must at least come to the platform that scripture provides the working definitions of god - where are else are you going to get your definition of god from? (particularly if you are an atheist)

So the contradiction, in your scriptures' definition, is not between
the spiritual and the non-spiritual. The fatal contradiction is between
the 'eternal' and the 'cause of all causes'. Briefly,
your God cannot be eternal and the cause of all causes at the same time.

Therefore, you have to choose either the 'eternal' or the 'cause of all causes'
but not both, in your definition of God.

Does a fire have to choose between emanating heat and having flames? You say there is no confusion between the spiritual and non-spiritual but that is precisely your confusion - you view eternity as absolute but it is an energy of the absolute just as heat is an energy of fire

lightgigantic: "...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...".

Once again, the body of your God is redundant and useless and has
no bearing whatsoever on this issue from the standpoint of logic and
reason. So keep the body of your Deity for yourself, and concentrate,
instead, on the basic contradictions and absurdities in your God's definition.

It has all importance - if you don't see the form of fire you are just left with the mystery of heat(in otherwords you are left with the mystery of energy with no energetic source) - in the same way if you look at god without his form you are just left with the mystery of eternity - just as heat is an energy that emanates from fire ,eternity is an energy of god that emanates from his form - if you don't accept the form of either what can you expect to understand of the energy?

Bear in mind:
Your God cannot exist without eternity at all.
But eternity can, perfectly, exist without your God.

If you could prove how wetness can exist without water or fire can exist without heat or how the sun planet can exist without sunshine I might be inclined to accept your conclusion - if you can't do that, changing your typefaces and font colours will not achieve much ...

lightgigantic: "...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".

The concept of God, under discussion, is the concept given by you.
And so if it's incomplete, then the blame is on you and your scriptures.

Right?

Wrong
You are the one working with an incomplete understanding of god - that's what enables you to follow with the logic that god is a contradiiction - basically your argument is this - eternity is not an energy of god - the scriptural definition is that god has a form of eternity knowledge and bliss - in other words just like the sun has a form of sunshine, or that fire has a form of heat or water has a form of wetness - your proposal of seperating eternity from god is just like seperating the sunshine from the sun, heat from fire or wetness from water.

 

[lightgigantic]

If your body is stinking and miserable, then your God
did a very poor job in creating you!
Why did a Deity with 'blissful & spiritual body'
put the soul of His own creation (you) inside a
'temporary abode of ignorance and misery' like your
flesh-and-bones body?

So, respect and take care of your own BODY!
Because, it's the only body you can have.
Follow in the footsteps of the marvelous Christians,
and always tell yourself:
http://bible.cc/genesis/1-27.htm

I have never read the whole of genesis before - I don't know what made you think I am a christian
Anyway the main reason for us having a corporeal body is that under illusion it appears like an attractive proposal - and its easy to view it as attractive when you have nothing to compare it to - like for instance if you labour under th e illusory idea that this is the only body you get.

But your general conclusion is correct - we should look afte the body because after all it is not our property

 

[AAF]

I have never read the whole of genesis before - I don't know what made you think I am a christian. Anyway the main reason for us having a corporeal body is that under illusion it appears like an attractive proposal - and its easy to view it as attractive when you have nothing to compare it to - like for instance if you labour under th e illusory idea that this is the only body you get. But your general conclusion is correct - we should look afte the body because after all it is not our property

What made you think that I think you are a Christian?
In fact, I believe you are a 'Brahma's Hindu'.
Am I right?

 

[TruthSeeker]

But your general conclusion is correct - we should look afte the body because after all it is not our property

That's why alcoholics are sometimes evicted....!

 

[Lawdog]

Anyone care to give me a summary of the discussion so far?

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic : "No. What makes you think they were guessing? Because they are indicating a phenomena that you are not aware of? Just because it is a guess for you doesn't mean it is a guess for everyone in all times and places...".

Because the ancient writers of your 'Brahma Sanhita'
could never arrive at their 'God has a blissful spiritual body'
in any other way, except through guessing and making guesses
and using their imagination just like poets and artists.
And the only possible phenomena, in this case, are hallucinations,
hallucinations, and more hallucinations on their part.

O.K.?

 

[AAF]

...To take this any further you would have to give an example of fire that is without heat or a sun planet without sunshine.
God is called the cause of all causes just as the sun planet is the cause of the sunshine. Its not like the sunshine caused the sun and it is not like eternity caused god. You just don't have a very firm grasp on the phenomena of god.

But you can have HEAT without FIRE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_energy

And you can have a SUN with little or no SUNSHINE!
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~stars/bdwarfs/

The situation is quite different in the case of Eternity & God.
Eternity (& time in general) is a basic general condition for
things (including gods & spirits & ghosts!) to exist.
If there is not TIME, then there is no EXISTENCE.
PERIOD!

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic : "No. What makes you think they were guessing? Because they are indicating a phenomena that you are not aware of? Just because it is a guess for you doesn't mean it is a guess for everyone in all times and places...".

Because the ancient writers of your 'Brahma Sanhita'
could never arrive at their 'God has a blissful spiritual body'
in any other way, except through guessing and making guesses
and using their imagination just like poets and artists.
And the only possible phenomena, in this case, are hallucinations,
hallucinations, and more hallucinations on their part.

O.K.?

Why do you say never?

It might be a case of never for you but that doesn't mean it is a case of never for everyone - actually what you are trying to do is enter into topics of how god is a contradiction by assuming that all scriptures that describe god are imagination - its assumed that if you are going to attempt to prove that god is a contradiction (on the basis of logic) you will be working with scripture as an authoratative source - otherwise you would be better off starting a different thread that is more indicative of your stance.

 

[lightgigantic]

What made you think that I think you are a Christian?
In fact, I believe you are a 'Brahma's Hindu'.
Am I right?

Just catergorize me as a monotheist otherwise you might get more confused than what you are already

 

[lightgigantic]

But you can have HEAT without FIRE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_energy

But i was asking you to show evidence of fire withour heat .... because that is your argument - that god is dependant on eternity, when I am saying that eternity is a concomitant factor of god

[And you can have a SUN with little or no SUNSHINE!
url]http://astro.berkeley.edu/~stars/bdwarfs/[/url]

But they are not actually suns - its like saying a pile of firewood has no heat, but thats because its not a fire but the raw ingredients for a fire - and then when you start the fire it is only tiny and has a little bit of heat, in which case it immediately becomes a different catergory of phenomena to firewood

Of course these are material examples - of course a fire has a cause and a sun has a cause - but what these examples are illustrating is how something that is energetic is characterised, recognised and inextricably connected to the energy that emanates from it. In the same way your endeavour to seperate eternity from god is just like separating sunshine from the sun

The situation is quite different in the case of Eternity & God.
Eternity (& time in general) is a basic general condition for
things (including gods & spirits & ghosts!) to exist.

Quite different? Its a direct scriptural refernce ....
The problem with your basic general conditions ar ethat they rely upon your mundane vision - time is an essential condition for the material world, but then by any definition of god, god is not a product of the material world - again it comes back to the question whether spiritual things also have a form - and again this topic is out of your league because you don't even have a foundation of knowledge to conceive of anything transcendental to begin with.
Actually the question whether spiritual things also have a form is quite interesting but obviously only those who have a foundation of transcendental knowledge can discuss or elaborate on it - otherwise its kind of like talking about rocket science in an assembly of people who are unfamiliar with physics

That's why i tell you that you are correct - according to your mundane concept of god, god is a contradiction, but that is only because your beginning premise is imperfect

If there is not TIME, then there is no EXISTENCE.
PERIOD!

 

[lightgigantic]

Anyone care to give me a summary of the discussion so far?

AAF is using a definition that eternity is not a concomitant factor of god's identity (in other words god is caused by eternity, as opposed to eternity being caused by god) as a basis for proving that god is a contradiction. His basis for such a view is his material experience of this world.

I am pointing out that you have to rely on definitions of god found in scripture if you want to even begin a discussion like this.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Anyone care to give me a summary of the discussion so far?

A whole bunch of valid points were made and ignored.

Now, seriously, the main problem with this discussion is the definition of God. Because of differences in various definitions amongst people, the concept of God is barely debatable. Some of them can be logically analized and even proven. Others cannot. But since most of the time two people are talking about two different "gods", they can never come to a concensus.

That basically sums up all discussions about God...

 

[lightgigantic]

That's why god must be defined according to scripture. Where else would you get a bona-fide definition of god from?

 

[wesmorris]

That's why god must be defined according to scripture. Where else would you get a bona-fide definition of god from?

Lol. I don't see how that's much different than pulling one out of your ass, except in that case you're pulling one out of the ass of a bunch of people who died a LONG time ago and wrote down what they pulled out of their asses for your future ass pulling benefit.