God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
MacM
Im sure everyone knew what you meant to say.
Im sure everyone knew what you meant to say.
DefSkeptic
Registered Senior Member
This is How South Park depicts God
Last edited:
Thanks, DefSkeptic.
Are you still around here, DefSkeptic?
I apologize for the long, long, long delay!
Is it possible for such old posts to go to the top?
This is only a test.
Hopefully it will work.
http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=661384
Are you still around here, DefSkeptic?
I apologize for the long, long, long delay!
Is it possible for such old posts to go to the top?
This is only a test.
Hopefully it will work.
http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=661384
:m:
Man!
It's tough to remain on top.
Posters around here won't let you stay for a minute on top!
In short, the idea of God is self-contradictory, and logically unfounded. Accordingly, it's false. To do away with it, its self-contradiction is enough. No further disproof is required.
So why do people claim from time to time that 'God' cannot be proved or disproved scientifically?
The only explanation of such an obvious fallacy is that 'Homo sapiens' by nature is a social animal and always ready to do anything to please inmates and get along with them even on the expense of reason and logic.
In addition, we should not forget that 'God' is, also, an ideal. In other words, the idea of 'God' is the model and the blueprint according to which you would certainly construct yourself, if you were given the power to re-design and build yourself from scratch. In this sense, even though God has no basis in reality, as an ideal is absolutely perfect and useful and you should keep Him as a guiding star and blueprint for impoving yourself at all levels.
Man!
It's tough to remain on top.
Posters around here won't let you stay for a minute on top!
In short, the idea of God is self-contradictory, and logically unfounded. Accordingly, it's false. To do away with it, its self-contradiction is enough. No further disproof is required.
So why do people claim from time to time that 'God' cannot be proved or disproved scientifically?
The only explanation of such an obvious fallacy is that 'Homo sapiens' by nature is a social animal and always ready to do anything to please inmates and get along with them even on the expense of reason and logic.
In addition, we should not forget that 'God' is, also, an ideal. In other words, the idea of 'God' is the model and the blueprint according to which you would certainly construct yourself, if you were given the power to re-design and build yourself from scratch. In this sense, even though God has no basis in reality, as an ideal is absolutely perfect and useful and you should keep Him as a guiding star and blueprint for impoving yourself at all levels.
AAF said:
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.
YAWNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
You non believers seem to know an awful lot about God and his 'special abilities?'
So let's assume in actual fact that God is NOT the absolute creator and cannot in fact create himself, then where does your theory go? er....the bin.
You cannot argue he MUST be anything, as to do so assumes he does exist? A thing that does not exist (like a pink polka dot elephant cannot be said to have special flying powers, when he could just as easily not? It's hypothetical nonsense.
Meanwhile if God does exist, then as with everything else, I am entirely sure he has his limitations. And thus it IS entirely possible he does exist.
The end.
I think that regardless of whether God exists or not, to try to answer that question we must do something that we cannot do. How can a limited being (such as ourselves) ever contemplate on that which is "theoretically" unlimited.
Just because we as limited beings presume a blatant paradox, doesn't mean that an unlimted being would see such a paradox. Our limitations are only set up to be aware of the five senses, time and space. Just because we find a paradox within those limitations doesn't prove that it is beyond an unlimited being without those constraints to dispel the paradox.
Max
Just because we as limited beings presume a blatant paradox, doesn't mean that an unlimted being would see such a paradox. Our limitations are only set up to be aware of the five senses, time and space. Just because we find a paradox within those limitations doesn't prove that it is beyond an unlimited being without those constraints to dispel the paradox.
Max
Theoryofrelativity said:YAWNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
You non believers seem to know an awful lot about God and his 'special abilities?'
So let's assume in actual fact that God is NOT the absolute creator and cannot in fact create himself, then where does your theory go? er....the bin.
You cannot argue he MUST be anything, as to do so assumes he does exist? A thing that does not exist (like a pink polka dot elephant cannot be said to have special flying powers, when he could just as easily not? It's hypothetical nonsense.
Meanwhile if God does exist, then as with everything else, I am entirely sure he has his limitations. And thus it IS entirely possible he does exist.
The end.
Thank you for the reply.
"...You cannot argue he MUST be anything..."?
Sorry, that is incorrect.
The mere fact that we are right here arguing about Him implies that 'God' must be something (prime mover, or lord of the world, or idea, or dream, or ideal, or fantasy, or English word, etc.,... etc.,... etc.).
"...I am entirely sure he has his limitations...".
If 'God' has limitations, then He is not the God of theology and philosophy.
It is quite possible that, somewhere in our Milky Way or any other galaxy, exists some being so powerful physically and mentally and so advanced scientifically and technologically to do almost any fantasy of religion, but his/her power is still finite and limited in some way.
Is that 'super being' the God of religion and philosophy?
Absolutely not! That being cannot be considered 'God', for two reason:
1. Such a powerful being, if exists, cannot be just the only one of his/her kind. He must be just one member of a whole species with potentially an infinite number of members.
2. If the power of that 'huge being' is not infinite, then it's quite possibe that another being greater and more powerful than him/her exists somewhere in the Cosmos.
And so that 'being' is not 'God'.
Last edited:
AAF said:Thank you for the reply.
"...You cannot argue he MUST be anything..."?
Sorry, that is incorrect.
The mere fact that we are right here arguing about Him implies that 'God' must be something (prime mover, or lord of the world, or idea, or dream, or ideal, or fantasy, or English word, etc.,... etc.,... etc.).
"...I am entirely sure he has his limitations...".
If 'God' has limitations, then He is not the God of theology and philosophy.
It is quite possible that, somewhere in our Milky Way or any other galaxy, exists some being so powerful physically and mentally and so advanced scientifically and technologically to do almost any fantasy of religion, but his/her power is still finite and limited in some way.
Is that 'super being' the God of religion and philosophy?
Absolutely not! That being cannot be considered 'God', for two reason:
1. Such a powerful being, if exists, cannot be just one of a kind. He must be just one member of a whole species with potentially an infinite number of members.
2. If the power of that 'huge being' is not infinite, then it's quite possibe that another being greater and more powerful than him/her exists somewhere in the Cosmos.
And so that 'being' is not 'God'.
who said God was creator of religion and philosophy? You are presuming to create God!
Man created religion, philosophising is merely thinking, we all do that.
We can NOT presume to know what the limitations of God are or are not. You are saying God is this and that, and therfore he isn't at all?
If he cannot be the things you say he is, then you are correct, he is not the things you say he is, just means he is something you say he isn't.
We have no clue as to what, how or where God is, we just ponder and that is all that we can do.
If we create a machine in the future that we wish to think for itself, we can still program its thinking to have limitations in order that it could never comprehend the nature of 'us' and therefore never presume to recreate us!
Meanwhile we are already trying to recreate the big bang and create life, so whatever it is that got this universe started, does not have to be all omnipotent blah blah blah, just another being in a lab somewhere doing a few tests, writing a few sums...you actually DO NOT know... hence your PROOF is nonsensical, as you are using knowledge of HIM to prove HIM cannot exist? What knowledge ??
Meanwhile we are taking 'the term 'God' to be he who that created this universe, fact that he too may have creator does not mean he is not God, just means the other dude, is Super God, or whatever, we don't have a term for he who created God.
My mother does not stop being my mother just becuase she had a mother.
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Many religions believe in the concept of God, however not all religions believe in the same attributes of God.
To answer your question of whether God created Himself, Allah swt has always been and will always be, He has no beginning and no end.
Allah swt created everything in the universe and everything is subservient to Him, He is the ultimate master of all that exists. Nothing happens without His knowledge. He was, He is, and He will be at the same exact time. He exists outside of time and space and is not subject to His creation of time and space, He has no limitations.
Allah swt is absolute perfection and His form is unknown to us. If He were to show His form to us while we are in our current bodies, we would perish due to the sheer magnificience of the Allah swt. This is Muslim belief.
Muslims do not believe Allah swt created us out of his own image like Christians and Jews. We believe that since humans are imperfect, it would not fit the majesty of God to look like His creation which He is far above.
Allah swt's infinite greatness is not completely comprehensible to our feeble minds.
Peace.
To answer your question of whether God created Himself, Allah swt has always been and will always be, He has no beginning and no end.
Allah swt created everything in the universe and everything is subservient to Him, He is the ultimate master of all that exists. Nothing happens without His knowledge. He was, He is, and He will be at the same exact time. He exists outside of time and space and is not subject to His creation of time and space, He has no limitations.
Allah swt is absolute perfection and His form is unknown to us. If He were to show His form to us while we are in our current bodies, we would perish due to the sheer magnificience of the Allah swt. This is Muslim belief.
Muslims do not believe Allah swt created us out of his own image like Christians and Jews. We believe that since humans are imperfect, it would not fit the majesty of God to look like His creation which He is far above.
Allah swt's infinite greatness is not completely comprehensible to our feeble minds.
Peace.
DiamondHearts said:
As I said, no one can know what God is about
Theoryofrelativity said:
I didn't say 'God was creator of religion and philosophy'.
What I meant is only the concept of God as defined in religion and philosophy.
"We can NOT presume to know what the limitations of God are or are not"!
To both of you:
Come on! It is not that difficult to define God and to investigate His limitations. The possibilities here are not endless. In fact, the possible forms that God can have are extremely limited as compared to those of a celestial body for example.
your definition of god is generalizing, what if i said that god was the empty force than runs throught eh universe that has no physical form so it cannot be created, the fabric of space time itself, could be called god,
the non physical could create the physical,
this universe works with its own laws, how do you know there is not a greater universe outside of ours that works completely different, and a god was logical there, what is our whole perception of everythig was way off, and we just dont know how the real universe works atall,
peace,
the non physical could create the physical,
this universe works with its own laws, how do you know there is not a greater universe outside of ours that works completely different, and a god was logical there, what is our whole perception of everythig was way off, and we just dont know how the real universe works atall,
peace,
AAF said:
If you are looking to find God within the laws of physics AAF, you have the wrong idea of God. It is as naive as Uri Gagarin famously NOT finding God "up there" when he was the first man in space.
God is something experienced within yourself (if you search), and beyond the physical universe.
It is a false dilemma. I think you need to consider the possibility that you don't comprehend the word "eternal". To look for what was before or what created eternity is a bit dumb.AAF said:
AAF said:
Proving/disproving God is like trying to "prove" or "disprove" what it's like to experience music to someone deaf from birth. You can measure bloodflow in the brain etc., but that does not reveal the experience. God (like subjective experience) is not a scientific phenomenon. That does not mean he/she does not exist, just that the scientific method is a limited tool not suited to reveal the ineffable. You can't cut the air using scissors.
AAF said:
This might help (I'm not a Taoist, but it might give you a flavour of what the whole God thing is about).
"The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding."
(Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu, Ch1. - S. Mitchell translation)
Last edited:
AAF said:
I didn't say 'God was creator of religion and philosophy'.
What I meant is only the concept of God as defined in religion and philosophy.
"We can NOT presume to know what the limitations of God are or are not"!
To both of you:
Come on! It is not that difficult to define God and to investigate His limitations. The possibilities here are not endless. In fact, the possible forms that God can have are extremely limited as compared to those of a celestial body for example.
you are a ninny my young friend, but a harmless one
do you realise how stupid that sounds.DiamondHearts said:
and this.DiamondHearts said:
it's certainly not what I believe, do you understand what perfection actually means.DiamondHearts said:
the only sensible thing you've said so far.DiamondHearts said:
then why did you post this crap, as you say you could'nt know, anything about this allah, talk about making assumptions, WOW!DiamondHearts said:
pbui
Just out of interest mustafhakofi... what about it sounds so stupid?mustafhakofi said:
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Theoryofrelativity said:
This is why it is classified by Islamic scholars as the Belief of Unseen. The true greatness and form of Allah swt is unknown to us. He is far above anything we can or will imagine. Our minds are limited in the comprehension of absolute perfection and eternal greatness. Allah swt is far beyond the limited scope of our imaginations.
Peace.
the whole thing.Diogenes' Dog said:
lets take the thing as a whole, if you cant totally comprehend a thing then you can only assume. which make the whole thing completely stupid.
if you split it up, into it's paragraphs,
paragraph 1,
if it has no begining or end, then it can only be circular therefore not limitless.
paragraph 2,
if it exist outside of time then it can have no effect on time, as it can have no effect on time it cannot know everything or be everywhere.
paragraph 3,
if it was perfect it would not need to create, it would need absolutely nothing. it would not be concerned with anything but it's self.
I could continue to break it down further, but it really is a waste of time.
- Status