God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
ROFL!!!!muhammad said:
Neh... I don't have time right now, really. I jsut know it has something to do with infinity and the perception of finity...AAF said:
All the known concepts of God are contradictory.
So try to come up with a new contradiction-free
definition of Him. And bring it on!
Enlist the help of 'lightgigantic', if you want.
And then bring it on!
lightgigantic: "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...".
But we are not teaching; we are debating & arguing!
lightgigantic: "...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...".
'transcendental'?
That is one of the main topics of Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason'.
http://www.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/
Also, by insisting on 'God must have a form', you will not
get the 'Transcendental God' you're looking for, but instead,
you will have the 'Materialistic God' that you don't like.
That is because forms are a basic characteristic of matter only.
lightgigantic: "...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?...".
That is not true.
All the known definitions of God (including the transcendental God)
are the subject of the above thread.
And every single one of them is conradictory.
In fact, it's you who, just few posts earlier, rejected the transcendental
concept as academic (& non-practitioner)!
you remember?
lightgigantic: "...Well that's a "concise definition" don't you think...".
So far, all definitions of God are concise.
lightgigantic: "...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...".
'god has a form of eternity'?
This, by far, is your biggest MISTAKE!
Eternity (& time generally) can have no form.
Forms are essentially spatial and belong exclusively
to material things.
lightgigantic: "...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...".
Do you think so?
So, why did you reject the work of Kant, one of its
great pioneers?
http://www.bright.net/~jclarke/kant/
lightgigantic: "...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?...".
Good!
You should start it first by accepting all the known
definitions of God as valid and good for any debate
on the topic of Divinity.
Do you agree?
Last edited:
AAF said:
lightgigantic: "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...".
But we are not teaching; we are debating & arguing!
But that's the point - how is it possible to debate when we are both operating out of different definitions of the subject in contention?
- my point is that because you lack an education in the theoretical knowledge of god your examination of the understanding of god is of no value
AAF said:
So what's your point? There are stacks of words for transcendental in sanskrit - do they also have to be attributed to Kant
AAF said:
I have already brought this up before - you contend that god is material - your logic is that matter has form and if spirit has form it must also be matter - you haven't even begun to establish why spiritual things cannot have form - its an impossible task for you to accomplish because you have no foundation of the theoretical knowledge of spirit to begin with. How do you propose to progress on to analysis of undersatnding?
AAF said:
Why are they contradictory? Because you said so?
AAF said:
I missed that one - as far as I remember I have been reiterating the same message here for weeks
AAF said:
all definitions of god are concise? So anyone can say anything about god and its concise? Would anyone defend science if it was also defined by the same liberal parameters?
AAF said:
But then there is the question what is spirit qualified by? As an atheist I know that you view spirit as an imagination but persons established in the field have a different perspective
AAF said:
lol - people use the word epistemology and ontology all the time, even to reject kant - its just the nature of empirical knowledge to reject the predecessor - in case you haven't noticed -lol
AAF said:lightgigantic: "...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?...".
Good!
You should start it first by accepting all the known
definitions of God as valid and good for any debate
on the topic of Divinity.
Do you agree?
Why? Because I give more creedence to defintions of god found in scripture than your own concoctions?
How arrogant of you.lightgigantic said:
Given that there is zero evidence for God - for ANY God that is not merely another term for a materialistic process - ANY THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE is as valid as no knowledge at all, as there is no support for any of them.
But if YOU have a SPECIFIC definition of God - then you must state it clearly and concisely, and not rely on jargon or expectation of other people's level of reading, as to do so is pseudo-intellectual dishonesty.
You seem to be the one with the problem.lightgigantic said:
There is NO evidence for ANYTHING that is not material at the smallest level.
Without being material, there is no interaction - as to do so would defy the laws of physics within this universe of ours.
If there is no interaction then it is akin to not existing - and whether or not it actually exists is a moot point as it can never be detected and there can never be any evidence for it.
But, if you insist on believing that something immaterial can interract with something material, please let us know why you come to this conclusion - and also your evidence.
"persons established in the field"? What does that mean? Who are you referring to?lightgigantic said:
I presume you are talking about people who have been indoctrinated, most likely from birth, into believing?
Sarkus said:
Should I ask for your permission before I state my views from now on?
Sarkus said:
Well from examining the general principles you are applying it looks like you are ready to turf 95% of what we have in the way of science, art and religion ....
Sarkus said:
Well -erm - I already have ... and ironically your issue is the exact issue I have with AAF, namely loose defintions of the subject in contention. I stated that god has a form of eternity full knowledge and full bliss. What words don't you understand in that definition?
Sarkus said:
That's my point - if that is the platform of your analysis of this thread then you are out of your league - god is not defined as a material phenomena (ie transcendental) - if you don't accept god as a transcendental phenomena of course god would be a contradiction, just as water without wetness or fire without heat or the sun globe without sunshine is a contradiction.
Sarkus said:
Well I used a definition that god has a form of eternity, knowledge and bliss - so at the very least he has form -
I tell you what, I will give you a hint how to make a logical argument - you have to prove that spiritual things do not have form - I don't know how you propose to do that since you lack a foundation of theoretical knowledge in the matter. You don't even accept spirit, much less how it can or cannot interact with matter
Sarkus said:
Consciousness interacts with matter all the time - if it didn't we would just have inanimate matter - what's the distinction between a tree and a table - both of them are just made of wood?
Sarkus said:
well I wasn't indoctrinated from birth so I guess I am not established in the field according to your definition.
To answer who is established in the field you just have to apply the same general principles to determine who is established in the field of astronomy, microwave cookery or even stamp collecting - surely its not such a difficult task ...
Once again you shoot yourself in the foot by accepting narrow definitions as a departure point for discussion
No - I just ask that you don't be so arrogant.lightgigantic said:
These are utterly meaningless in terms of a definition -lightgigantic said:
unless you can adequately define "bliss", "knowledge" and "eternity".
Then you must provide the necessary evidence to show how the transcendental can interract with the material.lightgigantic said:
We live in the material - everything in the universe that can interact with us is material - and we can only interact with the material.
How, then, is an immaterial / transcendental God supposed to interact with us, and us with it? How does it breach the material / immaterial barrier?
If we can observe it - it is material.
If we can not observe it - it is akin to not existing.
I accept that there might well be non-material things that we can NEVER witness / observe / have evidence before because they CAN NOT interact with the material - and thus are logically equivalent to something that doesn't exist.
And now you betray your lack of understanding of logical arguments... I am not the one making the assertive - YOU are the one that has to provide evidence of what you speak - or we shall continue to take it as the meaningless drivel that it is turning in to.lightgigantic said:
"Consciousness" is nothing more than a term we use for one by-product of the complexity of material / physical connections within our brain.lightgigantic said:
Remove brain - remove consciousness.
It might be an abstract term - which might be why you see it as "immaterial" - but it is an abstraction that describes the very physical/material activity and processes that go on inside our brains.
Unless you can see this, you will forever believe that we have evidence of immaterial things.
lightgigantic said:
Thus, you've rejected all the definitions of God, included here
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(monotheism),
because, in your view, they are definitions for academics and
not for praticioners!
Let us try, now, to define God and other spiritual entities using simple
operational procedures of practitioners. You might be convinced!
Every supernatural being (God included), in every religion and mythology,
can be defined and His/Her characteristics reproduced by defining and making
use of the basic characteristics of the typical HUMAN CHARACTER.
A typical human being has abilities and has intentions.
The abilities are always morally neutral and involve action.
The typical human being can think, can know, can talk,
can love, can hate, can punish, can reward, can build,
can destroy, can save, can create, can see, can hear,
can plan, can design, can give, can take, and so on.
The typical human being, also, has intentions that can
be classified into good intentions and evil intentions.
The range of abilities for humans can be lebaled
as below-average, average, and above-average,
but always finite.
Now, if we increase the range of abilities by moving
their upper limits upwards by very large but still finite
magnitude, we obtain ANGELS & DEVILS.
Both have the same range of abilities, but the angels
have good intentions, and the devils have evil intentions.
If we increase the range of abilities further, we get
the ARCHANGLES & SATAN!
Finally, if we remove all upper limits and make the
range of abilities infinite, we can, in principle, obtain
no more than two GODS, each with the same abilities
but with opposing intentions, the GOOD GOD & the EVIL GOD.
The Good God & the Evil God are identified as such in
in polytheistic religions, as for example in Zarathustra's religion:
http://www.worldhistory1a.homestead.com/zarathustra.html
Monotheistic religions, however, recognize only the Good God
(the God with good intentions). And as a result, they have
great difficulties in handling and explaining away the PROBLEM of
EVIL in the world.
So, God is defined operationally, on the basis of the character of
a typical human being, as a supernatural being whose
abilities are infinite and whose intentions are always good.
Is that clear?
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
So if a person is obviously working with definitions in a field of knowledge that are not found in that field of knowledge it is arrogant to state it? If I am trying to pass myself off as a doctor and don't know which end of the thermometer gauges the heat is it arrogant to bring that to people's attention?
Sarkus said:
The sanskrit words are sat - eternal, cit - knowledge ananda - bliss vigraha -form.
Tell me what part of that you don't understand and i will clarify it.
Sarkus said:
Well why shouldn't it? - this is what I mean by an absence of theoretical definitions - when you refer to the definition of god you are refering to the cause of the material world, so why would the cause be prohibited from interacting with effect? Or to put it another way, we have form so why do you assume that our cause doesn't have form - how is it possible for form to be caused by something that doesn't have form? If you have no answer for that why would you use such an illogical premise as a foundation? And why would you use that foundation (that god doesn't have a form) to overide an accepted definition found in scripture? In other words theres is an onus on you if you want to entertain that stance (at least in this thread - proving god is a logical contradiction by working out of an unacceptable definition of god)
Sarkus said:
But the very basis of interaction is not material, ie consciousness - otherwise there is no difference between a tree and a wooden table because they are both made of wood. You may say that consciousness is a material phenomena but you would be hard pressed to come close to giving the material components of consciousness.
Sarkus said:
either that or it is akin to ignorance
Sarkus said:
where do you draw the word "never" from? If it is your own experience why do you apply that to all time, places and circumstances?
Sarkus said:
I pointed out out in the beginning how you are asserting that form was caused by something that has no form (By your definition of god) and how that is obviously a contradiction (if god has no form how did we develop form) - my stance is that god has a form, which is a definition provided by scripture - why do you assert a different definition of god not found in scripture?
Sarkus said:
That's why I say you are out of your league with this thread - the moment you accept god as defined in scripture it is taken that consciousness is not a material phenomena and that you will work with that defintion to prove your statements - if you want to prove that god is a contradiction (which is what this thread is about) you have to use the epistemology of that branch of knowledge - if you don't have a foundation of theoretical information (ie terms of definition) how do you propose to do that?
What you are effectively doing is saying "god is a contradiction, but before I begin to explain that lets ignore the definition of god and begin with one I have concocted and bears no relation to scripture".
You need to back track and work with a thread more suitable to your stance or work with the proper definition of god
Sarkus said:
Where do you get the confidence to make these statements about consciousness? Isacc Asimov? - what you are stating about consciousness is not even close to being approached by science and belongs more to the realm of fiction and theory.
Sarkus said:
But the moment you refer to god you are refering to something that is not material - if you have problems with god in that definition you have to backtrack to a more suitable thread discussion - if you don't accept that god is not a material phenomena - you have no grounds for establishing that god is a contradiction (at least by logic - which seems to the grounds for this thread - a logical analysis of how god is a contradiction, as opposed to arguments vouched for by empiricism for altering the definition of god) - unless there is an agreed epistemological common ground on a subject (ie definitions granted on the platform of theoretical knowledge) there is no grounds for a debate of logic.
AAF said:
Thus, you've rejected all the definitions of God, included here
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_(monotheism),
because, in your view, they are definitions for academics and
not for praticioners!
No i just said it was too flowery and lateral to work out of - the definitions found there are more comprehensive (indicates any thing and everything that goes down in the name of monotheism) and hence not practical - it is an academics definition of monotheism rather than a practioners.
AAF said:
But it is also establihed that god is the cause of humans as opposed to humans being the cause of god - unless of course we reject the authority of scripture ... which brings us back to the epsitemological basis for this thread ...
AAF said:
Not really - under monotheism the idea is that there is god and there is ignorance of god. Just like there are two phenomena perceivable with the sun - light and darkness. What you are trying to establish is that darkness is the cause of light - like for instance if it was a particularly dark dark night the sun might appear less light at sunrise
AAF said:
Better to define god according to scripture as opposed to empiricism - otherwise there is no premise for a logical debate in an unestablished epistemology
Last edited:
lightgigantic: "No i just said it was too flowery and lateral to work out of - the definitions found there are more comprehensive (indicates any thing and everything that goes down in the name of monotheism) and hence not practical - it is an academics definition of monotheism rather than a practioners....".
'Too flowery'?
Very nice!
What would you call, then, the definitions of God in the Vedas?
Also, it is wrong to assume that all the definitions of God ever
given have no common basis. As a matter of fact, those definitions
for the most part are only different expressions and articulations for
the same concept, and can be substituted logically for each other
without any real difference or loss of consistency.
lightgigantic: "...But it is also establihed that god is the cause of humans as opposed to humans being the cause of god - unless of course we reject the authority of scripture ... which brings us back to the epsitemological basis for this thread ...".
That THREAD is killing you! Isn't it?
You just can't reconcile yourself to the FACT that
God is a man-made myth and He is not out there.
One more thing!
The 'authority of scripture' & the 'epsitemological basis'
can't go together. Either you are with The 'authority of scripture'.
Or you are with the 'epsitemological basis'.
You can't have both.
l*g*, you really need to work hard on the basics!
lightgigantic: "...Not really - under monotheism the idea is that there is god and there is ignorance of god. Just like there are two phenomena perceivable with the sun - light and darkness. What you are trying to establish is that darkness is the cause of light - like for instance if it was a particularly dark dark night the sun might appear less light at sunrise...".
What about Natural Catastrophes (earthquakes, tsunamis, plagues,...etc.)?
Is their EVIL a kind of 'ignorance of god', or something else?
lightgigantic: "...Better to define god according to scripture as opposed to empiricism - otherwise there is no premise for a logical debate in an unestablished epistemology...".
You really need to work hard on sorting them out!
Logic is in harmony with 'empiricism' far more
than with 'scriptures'.
You have to choose.
O.K.?
AAF said:
lightgigantic: "No i just said it was too flowery and lateral to work out of - the definitions found there are more comprehensive (indicates any thing and everything that goes down in the name of monotheism) and hence not practical - it is an academics definition of monotheism rather than a practioners....".
'Too flowery'?
Very nice!
What would you call, then, the definitions of God in the Vedas?
I would call them concise. You just have to examine the very beginning of the Wikipedia definition so see how inconsistent the definition is ....
"God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
Some concepts of God may include anthropomorphic attributes, gender, particular names, and ethnic exclusivity (see Chosen people), while others are purely transcendent or philosophic concepts."
"Maybe god is this, maybe god is that but we call it monotheism" - see what i mean ....
AAF said:
Well there is also a common basis between genetic research carried out by qualified persons and genetic research expounded by mad street vagrants - the point is that a person familiar with the qualifications can distinguish between the value of both.
I have already shown how the wikipedia definitionis inconsistent
AAF said:
No its your attempt to cram your concocted definitions of god as a basis for proceeding with the thread that is killing me :bugeye:
AAF said:
If that's the thread you want to pursue, why do you express it on this thread? You would be better off rephrasing your thread to be more in line with your ideological difference with theism - if you want to prove that god is a logical contradiction you will have to work with the epistemological definition of god - if you want to rewrite that definition (by belittling the authority of scripture etc etc) you should express it in another thread
AAF said:
epistemology merely means the process of acquiring knowledge. In theism there are two main catergories of epistemological authority - one is a saintly person and the other is scripture.
If you want to work at the basics you might want to examine on what credible basis do you redefine god....
AAF said:
An evil earthquake? Does that mean there are good earthquakes too? The problem with your dualistic approach to monotheism is that you view all dualities from your subjective position when you should view them from god's perspective - of course that is a little difficult because you insist on undercutting the main premise of monotheism - namely that god is not a material phenomena
AAF said:
I never said empiricism was illogical - i said it was illogical to establish a definition of god by empiricism since empiricism cannot move outside observations of matter (for instance how can empiricism perceive consciousness? How is it possible to see what you are seeing with?).
And when you proceed to take an empirical definition of god as a basis for proving that he is a contradiction it becomes even more illogical.
lightgigantic: "I would call them concise. You just have to examine the very beginning of the Wikipedia definition so see how inconsistent the definition is ...."God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
Some concepts of God may include anthropomorphic attributes, gender, particular names, and ethnic exclusivity (see Chosen people), while others are purely transcendent or philosophic concepts."
"Maybe god is this, maybe god is that but we call it monotheism" - see what i mean ....".
I see no problem with that.
Beliefs in God have very long history, and
wide variations in His definitions are expected.
But no matter what their start point is, those
definitions always converge towards one single
unifying concept, i.e. He is the 'SOURCE of every thing'.
lightgigantic: "...Well there is also a common basis between genetic research carried out by qualified persons and genetic research expounded by mad street vagrants - the point is that a person familiar with the qualifications can distinguish between the value of both...".
How can you tell?
A 'mad street vagrant' might stumble upon the truth first!
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/genius_is_one_of_the_many_forms_of/196126.html
Last edited:
AAF said:
lightgigantic: "I would call them concise. You just have to examine the very beginning of the Wikipedia definition so see how inconsistent the definition is ...."God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
Some concepts of God may include anthropomorphic attributes, gender, particular names, and ethnic exclusivity (see Chosen people), while others are purely transcendent or philosophic concepts."
"Maybe god is this, maybe god is that but we call it monotheism" - see what i mean ....".
I see no problem with that.
I am not surprised - after all you don't have a basis of theoretical knowledge - like a layman's definition for medical examination may be "sticking needles in people" but it is hardly what a doctor works with
AAF said:
that's why it is necessary to have a foundation of theoretical knowledge - otherwise you just see the variety of details and miss the common thread - just like in medical practice, if you don't have a foundation of theoretical knowledge how the body works you ar e just left to puzzle over techniques, ignorant to the unifying cause, namely the increaed health of the body (one moment they are giving you pills, the next mesuring blood pressure, and then they're cutting you open on the surgeon's table etc ). there are also a range of practices too - alopathic, homeopathic, natural chinese, ayurveda etc
AAF said:
I don't deny that - but it is precisely your understanding of that unifying point that I contend - you begin your definition as this unifying point as a material phenomena, and then proceed to apply logic - the proper definition is that the unifying point is not a material phenomena - like when god is referred to as having a form, the idea is that he does not have a material form since matter is accepted as an effect of god as opposed to the cause
AAF said:lightgigantic: "...Well there is also a common basis between genetic research carried out by qualified persons and genetic research expounded by mad street vagrants - the point is that a person familiar with the qualifications can distinguish between the value of both...".
How can you tell?
A 'mad street vagrant' might stumble upon the truth first!
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/genius_is_one_of_the_many_forms_of/196126.html
But the general phenomena is that street vagrants don't stumble upon the truth - how many scientists have been serious students of study and enquiry and how many have been street vagrants ?
- actually if one can recognise the qualifications of knowledge one can recognise it wherever it may be because one can see through external designations - your stance is that anyone who says anything about god is just as authoritative as anyone else - in other words because you lack the foundation of theoretical knowledge you have no discrimination to apply, hence my example of putting street vagrants and qualified scientists on the same platform of authority as an absurdity
lightgigantic: "...No its your attempt to cram your concocted definitions of god as a basis for proceeding with the thread that is killing me...".
You have no good reason for complaining!
I'm using your definition of God that 'He is the cause of all causes &
the origin of all' all the time.
lightgigantic: "...If that's the thread you want to pursue, why do you express it on this thread? You would be better off rephrasing your thread to be more in line with your ideological difference with theism - if you want to prove that god is a logical contradiction you will have to work with the epistemological definition of god - if you want to rewrite that definition (by belittling the authority of scripture etc etc) you should express it in another thread...".
Every definition of God is inconsistent and contradictory,
including the 'epistemological definition of god'.
http://www.quodlibet.net/foutz-belief.shtml
lightgigantic: "...epistemology merely means the process of acquiring knowledge. In theism there are two main catergories of epistemological authority - one is a saintly person and the other is scripture.
If you want to work at the basics you might want to examine on what credible basis do you redefine god....".
It's supposed to be examing the foundations of knowledge,
including the claims of 'saintly persons & holy scriptures'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html
lightgigantic: "...An evil earthquake? Does that mean there are good earthquakes too? The problem with your dualistic approach to monotheism is that you view all dualities from your subjective position when you should view them from god's perspective - of course that is a little difficult because you insist on undercutting the main premise of monotheism - namely that god is not a material phenomena...".
It's the evil of earthquakes, not evil earthquakes.
Who created it? The Good God or the Evil God?
And why should we view them from 'god's perspective'?
That would be a fallacy of begging the question.
And it is not a practical approach anyway.
Also, I don't insist on the premise that
'god is a kind of material phenomena'.
The main agrument of the above thread would
work regardless of whether that premise is true or not.
lightgigantic: "...I never said empiricism was illogical - i said it was illogical to establish a definition of god by empiricism since empiricism cannot move outside observations of matter (for instance how can empiricism perceive consciousness? How is it possible to see what you are seeing with?).
And when you proceed to take an empirical definition of god as a basis for proving that he is a contradiction it becomes even more illogical'.
'illogical to establish a definition of god by empiricism'?
So it's o.k. to consider definitions given by dreamy
'saintly persons' and half-sleeping monks.
But it is not o.k. to take into account definitions established
by sober and fully alert empiricists!
Is that what you are saying?
Last edited:
AAF said:
That's not where you use your skills of concoction though - you start concocting when you say that god is subject to material causes - in other words you over ride th e premise that god is the cause of all causes because you ascribe him to a previous cause or you say he is dependant on material phenomena for an existence
AAF said:
"That is to say, the criteria by which a belief is deemed plausible, justifiable or otherwise, will consist in a correspondence with actual states of affairs, and such a correspondence will be known by us only through existential ideas and extrapolations thereof"
There is a lot of room in the definition of the "actual state of affairs" - if you begin with the definition that matter is the only component in the actual state of affairs you will have a limited sphere to work in. The epistemological definition of god begins with the theoretical foundation that he is a transcendental phenomena. If you miss that you miss the epistemology.
AAF said:
So that's why you examine saintly persons and scripture in the epistemology of religion :bugeye:
You are trying to propose an epistemology where your views on the primary definitions of what god is overrides scripture and saintly persons.
AAF said:
well usually if a man does an evil act they call him an evil man - what's the difference?
AAF said:
Who created the darkness? The evil sun or the good sun?
Because he is the cause of all causes rememberAAF said:
AAF said:
Yes its not practical unless you have a foundation of theoretical knowledge
AAF said:
Well you are arguing that god must have a material cause to exist so of course you wind up in explaining god as a contradiction
AAF said:
Again, if that's the thread you want to take, namely undermining the authority of scripture that gives us the working definitions of god, you would be better off expressing it in a seperate thread. If you want to prove that god is a contradiction by logic, as opposed to proving that scripture or saintly people are a contradiction by insult, you have to work with the definitions of god given in scripture - otherwise you are out of your leauge trying to usurp the authority of an established epistemology with your own concocted basis of theoretical knowledge
Last edited:
lightgigantic: "I am not surprised - after all you don't have a basis of theoretical knowledge - like a layman's definition for medical examination may be "sticking needles in people" but it is hardly what a doctor works with...".
Get serious!
First, you rejected them because they are for academics.
And now you're claiming those same definitions are for laymen,
and not for you!
The fact is this: You could not find one single concept of God
(including your own) to be consistent and free of contradictions.
And so you have rejected them all.
Correct?
lightgigantic: "...that's why it is necessary to have a foundation of theoretical knowledge - otherwise you just see the variety of details and miss the common thread - just like in medical practice, if you don't have a foundation of theoretical knowledge how the body works you ar e just left to puzzle over techniques, ignorant to the unifying cause, namely the increaed health of the body (one moment they are giving you pills, the next mesuring blood pressure, and then they're cutting you open on the surgeon's table etc ). there are also a range of practices too - alopathic, homeopathic, natural chinese, ayurveda etc...".
Show us some of your fabulous 'theoretical knowledge'!
Up to now, you're just using it as a 'catchy phrase', no more.
Okay?
lightgigantic: "...I don't deny that - but it is precisely your understanding of that unifying point that I contend - you begin your definition as this unifying point as a material phenomena, and then proceed to apply logic - the proper definition is that the unifying point is not a material phenomena - like when god is referred to as having a form, the idea is that he does not have a material form since matter is accepted as an effect of god as opposed to the cause...".
Where is the materialism in 'God is the source of all'?
You are certainly looking for a 'straw man', or simply
playing around with words.
lightgigantic: "...But the general phenomena is that street vagrants don't stumble upon the truth - how many scientists have been serious students of study and enquiry and how many have been street vagrants ?
- actually if one can recognise the qualifications of knowledge one can recognise it wherever it may be because one can see through external designations - your stance is that anyone who says anything about god is just as authoritative as anyone else - in other words because you lack the foundation of theoretical knowledge you have no discrimination to apply, hence my example of putting street vagrants and qualified scientists on the same platform of authority as an absurdity...".
You are against 'qualified scientists', and with the 'scriptures'.
So unless you believe in the Caste System of your scriptures, you should
not look down on vagrants and paupers just for not having money or home.
Right?
Last edited:
lightgigantic: "That's not where you use your skills of concoction though - you start concocting when you say that god is subject to material causes - in other words you over ride th e premise that god is the cause of all causes because you ascribe him to a previous cause or you say he is dependant on material phenomena for an existence...".
That is your own straw-man argument.
And it is not mine.
My objection was and still is this:
Your Deity cannot be the cause of all causes,
because He cannot cause Himself.
Your God cannot be the origin of all, because
He cannot exist without eternity; and therefore,
He cannot be the origin of time.
And if your God has a form as you insist, then He
also cannot exist without space; and therefore,
He cannot cause space.
Your God certainly cannot be the origin of the logical
law of identity, because He must have identiy before
being able to do anything at all.
He also cannot be the cause or the creator of
the law of contradiction and the law of excluded middle,
because He Himself cannot exist or make any sense in
the absence of those logical laws.
As a result of all of the above, your definition of God
is conradictory.
lightgigantic: "...There is a lot of room in the definition of the "actual state of affairs" - if you begin with the definition that matter is the only component in the actual state of affairs you will have a limited sphere to work in. The epistemological definition of god begins with the theoretical foundation that he is a transcendental phenomena. If you miss that you miss the epistemology...".
There is even more room in the definition of 'transcendental phenomena'. And again, show us some of this mysterious 'theoretical foundation' of yours! Is it really there or just a 'CATCHY PHRASE'?
lightgigantic: "...well usually if a man does an evil act they call him an evil man - what's the difference? Who created the darkness? The evil sun or the good sun?...".
Because a 'man' is supposed to have FREE WILL, but
an 'earthquake' does not.
And don't blame the sun for it! Your God is declared by you to be
the cause of all causes; and so He is responsible for that.
lightgigantic: "...Because he is the cause of all causes remember...".
That is right.
If you break it, you own it!
lightgigantic: "...Yes its not practical unless you have a foundation of theoretical knowledge...".
This 'theoretical knowledge' is freaking me out!
What is it? Theoretical physics? Pure mathematics?
Idealistic theology? What is it? German philosophy?
French? English? Indian? What is it?
lightgigantic said:
So you're still holding back your mysterious 'theoretical knowledge'
as a very big secret! And you don't want to tell us anything about it.
You have every right to do so. For let us face it, your secret
'theoretical knowledge' doesn't have a chance to stand on its
own, if you write it down right here in clear words.
Now, let me try, based on the post above, to make an outline of it!
First of all, your 'theoretical knowledge' is founded on the Vedas.
And so the authority of 'scripture and saintly persons' is very
important to you. Without it, your worldview would collapse.
In that saintly source, God is assumed to be the 'origin of all & the
cause of all causes'. And this is the definition that you should stick to.
Forget about epistemology and the 'authority of established epistemology'!
Because deep down, you don't really believe in it. Your only authority
is the authority of 'scripture and saintly persons', and that is it.
I have shown you that the definition given by the 'scripture and
saintly persons' is contadictory, since your Deity can possibly
cause neither Himself nor eternity nor laws of logic.
In resposne to my objection, you've come up with
this 'theoretical knowledge':
The sun radiates sunlight. Fire radiates heat.
In the same way, God radiates all things, including eternity and the
laws of logic. This analogy, I should say, is poetic and quite good!
Unfortunately, it does not resolve the basic conrtadictions.
Because if all those things are as eternal and old as God Himself,
then they are eternal and onld and have no beginnigs and therefore
they do not need causes or origins or God in order for them to exist.
Hence, the definition that 'God is the cause of all cause' is false.
Eternal entities do not need a first cause, because they have no starting
point to begin with. Your God, thus, is useless.
The uselessness of the God hypothesis was pointed out by
Pierre-Simon Laplace long time ago:
'After presenting his scheme for how the universe fit together, Pierre-Simon Laplace, one of the great early cosmologists, was challenged by Napoleon, "I notice that there is no mention of God in your system."
"Sire, I have no need of the hypothesis," Laplace replied'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace
Last edited:
- Status