Pretty much anywhere else...lightgigantic said:
God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
You mean "reference" not "benefit"...?wesmorris said:
wesmorris said:
Well I think we are making progress in locating where some people extract their definitions of god from , since their consensus seems to be you can find out about god anywhere but scripture
lightgigantic said:
So you mean that you are not a polytheistic Hindu,
and your religion is one of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheistic
Correct?
Also, I think if you examine few posts of the above, you
will see clearly who is more confused around here.
I mean, obviously, you!
lightgigantic: "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 a complete understanding of god and are using that as a basis for your ideas...".
False!
I have no use for God's forms. My argument doesn't need it.
So stop using this futile line of defense, and get down to
the real issues.
lightgigantic: "...An integral part of that discussion is that god has a form...".
God has a form!
What good can that do for you to get you out of your DILEMMA?
Give your God a form of your choice, and then solve the CONTRADICTIONS
in your current definition of Him.
O.K.?
lightgigantic: "...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)...".
You need to do more than 'lol' to solve your problems.
Give Him a form of your choice, o ye 'spiritual one'!
But that will increase your trouble, not decrease it.
In particular, you will be required to defend your ancient books,
which is not an easy and very pleasant thing to do.
You have no evidence whatsoever that your ancient books
came even remotely to the truth or something like the truth.
They are, quite frankly, mere collections of fables and myths
no more and less.
On what basis, do believe that God can only be defined in ancient
writings by ancient priests and charlatans?
Don't you know that a whole chunk of philosophy has been devoted
entirely to making and perfecting those definitions of Supreme
Beings?
Therefore, clear up your mind of any confusion,
and get down to your real busines, i.e. solving
the contradiction between your God and Time.
Last edited:
AAF
There is a model for knowledge that goes like this
theoretical knowledge > understanding > realisation
in other words if you don't have a proper foundation in theoretical knowledge you have no understanding what to speak of practical application to enter into realisation.
This is just a general principle of knowledge that can be applied to any field of knowledge- obviously if you want to critically examine the conclusions of a field of knowledge you have to have a foundation in theoretical knowledge and theoretical knowledge begins with concise definitions - the problem with this thread is that you do not have a foundation of theoretical knowledge in spiritual affairs - infact you have great reservations about the basis of theoretical knowledge of spiritual life (ie scripture or even philosophers) - the result is that you land yourself in various epistemological difficulties because of adhering to loose definitions in the stage of theoretical knowledge - you don't actually pose any serious philosophical challenges and succeed only in winning brownie points amongst similar epistemologically challenged persons.
You say that god is a contradiction but it seems this thread is a contradiction because you do not have clear definitions on what god is - in other words the only reason god is a contradiction is beacuse you use a loose definition of god as a basis for theoretical knowledge
Does this make sense?
There is a model for knowledge that goes like this
theoretical knowledge > understanding > realisation
in other words if you don't have a proper foundation in theoretical knowledge you have no understanding what to speak of practical application to enter into realisation.
This is just a general principle of knowledge that can be applied to any field of knowledge- obviously if you want to critically examine the conclusions of a field of knowledge you have to have a foundation in theoretical knowledge and theoretical knowledge begins with concise definitions - the problem with this thread is that you do not have a foundation of theoretical knowledge in spiritual affairs - infact you have great reservations about the basis of theoretical knowledge of spiritual life (ie scripture or even philosophers) - the result is that you land yourself in various epistemological difficulties because of adhering to loose definitions in the stage of theoretical knowledge - you don't actually pose any serious philosophical challenges and succeed only in winning brownie points amongst similar epistemologically challenged persons.
You say that god is a contradiction but it seems this thread is a contradiction because you do not have clear definitions on what god is - in other words the only reason god is a contradiction is beacuse you use a loose definition of god as a basis for theoretical knowledge
Does this make sense?
wesmorris said:
Then your task to make god a contradiction becomes very easy because you begin with unqualified definitions
lightgigantic: "AAF, There is a model for knowledge that goes like this
theoretical knowledge > understanding > realisation. in other words if you don't have a proper foundation in theoretical knowledge you have no understanding what to speak of practical application to enter into realisation...".
From where you got that model?
Do you mean by 'theoretical knowledge' pure reason?
If it is, then it almost always starts with self-evident axioms
and clear-cut principles. Take a look!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason
lightgigantic: "...This is just a general principle of knowledge that can be applied to any field of knowledge- obviously if you want to critically examine the conclusions of a field of knowledge you have to have a foundation in theoretical knowledge and theoretical knowledge begins with concise definitions...".
It is not just 'concise definitions'!
The definitions must be, also, conventional, logical, clear,
and acknowledged by most people working in that field.
For instance, defining God as the 'absolute Creator of the
world' is recognized as the standard definition in all theologies.
Your own definition of God, simply, states the same thing
using different phrases, i.e. 'cause of all'. & 'origin of all'.
Therefore, your refusal to accept defining God as the 'absolute
Creator of every thing' is misguided and misconceived.
lightgigantic: "... - the problem with this thread is that you do not have a foundation of theoretical knowledge in spiritual affairs - infact you have great reservations about the basis of theoretical knowledge of spiritual life (ie scripture or even philosophers) - the result is that you land yourself in various epistemological difficulties because of adhering to loose definitions in the stage of theoretical knowledge - you don't actually pose any serious philosophical challenges and succeed only in winning brownie points amongst similar epistemologically challenged persons.
You certainly realize that is a hot air!
Do you really mean that one must believe any
spiritual or religious guff before starting to examine and criticize it?
As mentioned above, your wrong-headed refusal to accept defining
God as the 'absolute Creator of the Universe' is misguided
and misconceived. Because that definition is the standard definition
in theology, philosophy, and religion. The refusal, therefore, would do
your argument no good.
In short, it would make you appear ill-informed and a bit confused.
Or worse, you could look like someone who is cornered and in despair!
lightgigantic: "...You say that god is a contradiction but it seems this thread is a contradiction because you do not have clear definitions on what god is - in other words the only reason god is a contradiction is beacuse you use a loose definition of god as a basis for theoretical knowledge
Does this make sense?".
God defined as the 'Creator of the world', the 'Origin of all' and
the 'Cause of all' is clear and tight and correct.
Is that clear?
Last edited:
lightgigantic: "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?...".
First, the analogy of a 'sun is not able to exist without sunshine'
is false. Because the sunshine does not create the sun. But it's the sun
that creates the sunshine.
Second, eternity (& time in general) can exist in the absence of God.
But God (& every thing else) cannot exist in the absence of eternity.
Because, the word 'EXISTENCE' itself, quite simply, ceases to
make sense in the absence of time. God, accordingly, can never ever
create or even imagine to create time.
lightgigantic: "...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?)...".
Eternity (& time in general) comes before God (& every thing else)
by an absolute logical necessity, not by speculations.
And that is the reason why the definition of God as the 'Cause of all'
the 'Origin of all' & the 'Creator of all' would not work.
Hence, the very standard concept of God is contradictory & wrong.
lightgigantic: "...- 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
Once again, defining God as the 'absolute Creator of the
world' is recognized as the standard definition in theology,
philosophy, and religion. Your own definition of God, simply,
states the same thing using different phrases, i.e.
'cause of all'. & 'origin of all'.
Therefore, the contradictions in the conception of God are real and true.
God simply cannot create time. Time must come first by logic & reason.
Correct?
AAF said:
lightgigantic: "AAF, There is a model for knowledge that goes like this
theoretical knowledge > understanding > realisation. in other words if you don't have a proper foundation in theoretical knowledge you have no understanding what to speak of practical application to enter into realisation...".
From where you got that model?
Its not an esoteric model - its a model for education - if you want to teach someone car mechanics (or anything at all) you start with theoretical information which is composed of agreed definitions so you can talk about cars as opposed to bulldozers and submarines
AAF said:
No I mean theoretical knowledge - for instance if you ar e talking about god it is accepted that you are talking about a transcendental phenomena - in other words there is no theist who would say that god is a material phenomena, so trying to disprove god by accepting him as a material phenomena and using that vehicle of definition as a basis for proving a contradiction merely proves you have no clear theoretical knowledge
AAF said:
Thats why i said you were out of your league with this thread - you actually don't accept god as a transcendental phenomena so how do you propose to prove god is a contradiction when those who do accept god work out of a different definition?
AAF said:
Well that's a "concise definition" don't you think
AAF said:
The definition I gave was that god has a form of eternity, full knowledge and full bliss - your definition is that god does not have a form of eternity, which is just like saying that fire has a form that doesn't have heat, water has a form that is not wet or that the sun does not have sunshine - in otherwords a person who thinks like that is obviously not talking anout god, fire, water or the sun because they deny the primary characteristics by which the phenomena is recognised.
AAF said:
epistemology is just that part of philosophy that deals with knowledge (how it is acquired or arrived at etc). Didn't mean to alienate you by using unfamilar words
AAF said:
If you are going to start talking about god and expect some sort of intelligent discussion to follow you should work with the proper foundations of theoretical knowledge - that's why I said you were out of your league with this thread - you have difficulties with the "theoretical knowledge" and therefore you have no leverage in analyzing what goes on in the name of "understanding" (what to speak of "realisation"). You would be better off in a thread that attempts to undermine the authority of scripture because you are trying to push through a concept of god that is contrary to scriptural definitions - I mean who do you think has more authority in laying down definitions of god? You or scripture?
AAF said:
The problem is that it is you who says that eternity is the cause of god and it is scripture that says god is the cause of eternity (since god has a body composed of eternity). Who do you think we should consult for proper definitions of god? You or scripture?
AAF said:
He is also defined as having a body composed of eternity, full knowledge and full bliss
Due to an absence of established theoretical knowledge this is what is not clear to you ....
lightgigantic said:
That is not quite it.
A personal God is not only that; to be truly
personal He must also care and take care of
the well-being of His human whorshippers.
Now, when you assert that time and matter (you should add, also, space, logic, & laws of nature) are eternal, you implicitly asserts that 'CREATION' has no beginning. By asserting that, you avoid the paradox of INFINITE TIME and the 'LAZY GOD' paradox. But at the same time, such an assertion of 'NO BEGINNING' puts your GOD under the sharpest edge of Ockham's RAZOR.
And so, He must be thrown away as redundant and useless.
Do you agree?
AAF said:
That is not quite it.
A personal God is not only that; to be truly
personal He must also care and take care of
the well-being of His human whorshippers.
Now, when you assert that time and matter (you should add, also, space, logic, & laws of nature) are eternal, you implicitly asserts that 'CREATION' has no beginning. By asserting that, you avoid the paradox of INFINITE TIME and the 'LAZY GOD' paradox. But at the same time, such an assertion of 'NO BEGINNING' puts your GOD under the sharpest edge of Ockham's RAZOR.
And so, He must be thrown away as redundant and useless.
Do you agree?
Time is eternal and the raw ingredients for matter are eternal - but the perceivable laws that exist within these phenomena may or may not be eternal because there is cause and effect that may make something manifest at one point and non manifest at another - like for instance the potency for fire within firewood exists at all times but it may be actually alight or extinguished (manifest and non manifest) according to the circumstance.
I don't have the foggiest what you are referring to by ockham's razor, so if you expect me to respond to it you will have to put it in a philosophical framework.
AAF said:
One argument at a time
At the moment there is confusion about just a general understanding of god - and you want to start on the topic of denomination????
Last edited:
And as I said before, I disagree with your concept of God, which renders your second premise completely invalid.AAF said:
This, neatly, summarizes it:
Every thing whose concept is contradictory does not exist.
The concept of God is contradictory.
Therefore, God does not exist.
Confirmed AAF
You have two practioners pulling you up on the same general principles
You have two practioners pulling you up on the same general principles
I witness that there is no God but ALLAH . I witness that Muhammad is the messenger of ALLAH .
I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, the One, without any partner. And I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger.
God = ALLAH
he is there and you all will face the truth after you die
i understand how humans are unjust and how hearts sometimes become more stiff than rocks .
i feel sorry for all humans who think that they were created by noone .
and i feel more sorry for those who think that their God is weak or similar to humans .
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44145
.La 'ilaha 'illa ALLAH .
I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, the One, without any partner. And I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger.
God = ALLAH
he is there and you all will face the truth after you die
i understand how humans are unjust and how hearts sometimes become more stiff than rocks .
i feel sorry for all humans who think that they were created by noone .
and i feel more sorry for those who think that their God is weak or similar to humans .
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44145
.La 'ilaha 'illa ALLAH .
muhammad said:
Hi muhammad:
Allah and God are not exactly the same.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/22926
:m:
- Status