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

[AAF]

..............Theory is required before understanding. Understanding is required before analysis of hypothesis - if you want to lauch into analysis of hypothesis before theory you shoot yourself in the foot - you say god is a contradiction according to material logic but god is not defined within the confines of matter to begin with - you are working with a definition that a practioner doesn't work with - you ar eaccepting a definition that an atheist works with - so the result of this thread is that you are "preaching to the converted" - that's why i say you are out of your league if you want to prove god is a contradiction in an assembly of theists - theists work with a different definition

Understanding always comes ahead of theories.
And a theory is merely a hyothesis that has been
expanded and worked out in detail.
But that is a minor technical problem.

Your BIGGEST PROBLEM, here, is the false assumption, in almost
all of your posts on this subject, that God can be above time and
logic, and yet He can exist. That is your real problem.

Certainly, you can assert that someone or something is above the
law, justice, morality,...etc. without being self-contradictory.
But you cannot do the same thing with logic.
That is because the scope of logic is extremely general.
And when you declare someone or something is beyond or
above logic, you are in effect declaring that the concept of that
someone or something is contradictory and logically absurd and
therefore, that someone or something cannot exist.
Accordingly, the Transcendental Deity who is above time and logic
is absolutely imaginary and can never ever exist.

Think about it very carefully; and hopefully you shall see the truth!

 

[lightgigantic]

'surrender to god'?
What is this?
Is your God your victorious ENEMY?
He is supposed to be kind, gentle, and superior in everything!
So why is He bullying weak, mortal, little creatures like yourself?
That is not fair. Not fair at all!
Therefore, Your God deserves to be banished out of existence.

Well the idea is that if you surrender to god you acquire a better grade of existence, namely a type of happiness that cannot be rocked by duality - I guess I should have added "with love" after "surrender " - just as one lover becomes more satisfied if they surrender to the other - its not like god's going to pin you down over the trenches of war fare - after all he is not interested in any sort of surrender that doesn't arise from your free will

As for trying to get god to surrender to you, well you can try, but unless you have a great love for god it probably won't work -lol

 

[lightgigantic]

And why should we accept without thinking the definition of God
declared by your 'scripture'?

Now, when you say that God is a 'transcendental phenomenon',
you imply He is not 'transcendental'!
That is because PHENOMENA are always accessible and observable.
Therefore your God can only be a 'transcendental entity'.
Right?

Well this gets back to the same point - If thats your angle you have to prove how spiritual things don't have a form - and once again you are out of your league because you don't have the proper foundations to enter into any real discussion of it.

 

[Sarkus]

If thats your angle you have to prove how spiritual things don't have a form - and once again you are out of your league because you don't have the proper foundations to enter into any real discussion of it.

You are the one making the assertion that spiritual things have form.
YOU are the one that therefore has to provide evidence to support this claim.

If I, or AAF, do not believe you - the onus is NOT on us to provide evidence to the contrary - but on you to support your claim.

 

[lightgigantic]

Understanding always comes ahead of theories.

Understanding comes with theory - if you mess up the theory you don't understand a thing

And a theory is merely a hyothesis that has been
expanded and worked out in detail.

Thats why the beginner isn't expected to launch into prac - they accept the prac of qualified persons

But that is a minor technical problem.
Its a pretty big problem actually - imagine if you set out to be a doctor but didn't know what blood was or where the heart, kidneys, liver and intestinew were?

Your BIGGEST PROBLEM, here, is the false assumption, in almost
all of your posts on this subject, that God can be above time and
logic, and yet He can exist.

And your biggest problem is to think that a god who is caused by time is a monotheistic god - its a polythesitic god because other "gods" must also have the same opportunity to rise to power

Certainly, you can assert that someone or something is above the
law, justice, morality,...etc. without being self-contradictory.
But you cannot do the same thing with logic.

I never said that god is beyond logic - I said he operates on a higher grade of logic - just because your current existence is quite limited doesn't mean that everyone's is, what to speak of gods - you should really ask yourself what is the basis that you can use your own powers of existence (or lack of them) as a basis for defining the limits of god)

That is because the scope of logic is extremely general.
And when you declare someone or something is beyond or
above logic, you are in effect declaring that the concept of that
someone or something is contradictory and logically absurd and
therefore, that someone or something cannot exist.

It may not be logical for a criminal to absolve himself of a crime but it logical for the king to (if he desires, of course)

Accordingly, the Transcendental Deity who is above time and logic
is absolutely imaginary and can never ever exist.

I think it is more correct to say that the living entity, either in his conditioned or liberated stages, can never be as resiliently transcendental as god

Think about it very carefully; and hopefully you shall see the truth

Thinking can only bring you to the platform of the application of religious principles - and by the successful performance of religious principles you can understand god - How can a sinful person expect to understand god if they continue to be sinful - doesn't matter what IQ you have

 

[lightgigantic]

You are the one making the assertion that spiritual things have form.
YOU are the one that therefore has to provide evidence to support this claim.

If I, or AAF, do not believe you - the onus is NOT on us to provide evidence to the contrary - but on you to support your claim.

Scripture provides the assertion that god has a form - remember a form (vigrahah) of eternity (sat) knowledge (cit) and bliss (ananda) - it also makes sense too - since if god is the source of everything, how did form develop from something that has no form? Its almost as absurd as thinking that matter created consciousness.

Now if you want to overide the definitions of god in scripture you have to give some indication of your credibility

 

[Sarkus]

Scripture provides the assertion that god has a form - remember a form (vigrahah) of eternity (sat) knowledge (cit) and bliss (ananda) - it also makes sense too - since if god is the source of everything, how did form develop from something that has no form?

Round and round and round we go.

The definitions you have from scripture are abstracts - unless you can provide explanation as to why they are not?

Please explain how the abstract creates the physical?

Its almost as absurd as thinking that matter created consciousness.

Absurd? Ah - so your argument is partly from one of incredulity! NOW we are getting to the crux of it!!

Now if you want to overide the definitions of god in scripture you have to give some indication of your credibility

And you round it off nicely with an argument from authority.

So we are to believe everything those "in authority" tell us?
Foolish.
And dangerous.

 

[stu43t]

MacM-



Ignorance is bliss, not bless

Now thats what I call ignorant. Lol

 

[stu43t]

What "caused" god? Why was god required?

What "caused" god? - Well, god is a figment of mankinds imagination.

Why was god required? - God is the easy answer to all the unanswerable questions for mankind. Oh, and not forgetting - God was an idea to gain power and control over people.

 

[AAF]

Understanding comes with theory - if you mess up the theory you don't understand a thing.............

If you don't have understanding to begin with, then how can you
come up with reasonably good theories?
Your problem is that most of the time you look at things from
the perspective of a receiving 'PUPIL', and not, as you should,
from the point of view of 'ORIGINATORS, PIONEERS, & TRAIL BLAZERS'.
Does that make sense?

 

[AAF]

Well you are working out of a model of empiricism - in other words you have human consciousness duking it out with inanimate matter trying to uncover its musteries - in spiritual life the duking out doesn't get you far because the thing being studied is superior in consciousness , ie god, so its more a case of it being revealed to the sincere practioner as opposed to the adroit researcher - but even if you disagree (which I am sure you do -lol) when a person sets out to study medicine do they go back to reinventing the wheel or do they approach a body of theoretical knowledge?
.........................................................

What 'model of empiricism'?
Do you mean the FACT that the supposed 'CREATOR'
of all things cannot create Himself?
Also, do you really believe that the truth about religion can only be
'revealed to the sincere practitioner' (i.e. a priest or monk)?
Finally, why do you hate 'inanimate matter'?
Why do you always use the phrase of 'inanimate matter' as
a very good insult? That doesn't make any sense.
Your own body is composed of MATTER.
Your whole being depends on MATTER.
Your brain is made of MATTER.
Your food, your shelter, your bed, your chair, your friends,
your relativies, your car, your COMPUTER, your country,...etc.
are all made out of MATTER.
So respect and love MATTER.
MATTER can be the REAL GOD
OKAY?

 

[(Q)]

Depends which doctors you check out - if you see a nutrionist they may advise you to change your diet - an accupuncturist may give you a few needles - a chinese doctor would give you some bitter tasting tea

And would those other remedies work on a rash?

What caused god - he has no cause - thats what it means to be the cause of all causes ... if you trace your family tree down to your furtherest ancestors what caused you? Assuming you take the absolutist evolutionist stance what caused matter to become conscious?

I was caused by a sperm defeating and overpowering its arch rival; the egg. And do you actually think there is a simple answer to the cause of consciousness, like the bible provides?

Why was god required? Well why do you require a person to drive a car - why don't cars just go by themselves?

People aren't cars, and they do "go by themselves." Or, haven't you noticed?

 

[AAF]

.............................Thinking can only bring you to the platform of the application of religious principles - and by the successful performance of religious principles you can understand god - How can a sinful person expect to understand god if they continue to be sinful - doesn't matter what IQ you have

'performance', 'performance', 'performance'!
Are you trying to make a monk out of me?

Look, my good friend!

The very concept of God is illogical and contradictory.
Performance of ancient customs and rituals would not
make that contradictory concept consistent and logical.
It may make you feel un-'sinful'. But such a feeling is
childish and silly and it would not settle a thing.

Agree?

 

[Lawdog]

AAF: your opening statements for this thread are flawed seriously.

 

[Lawdog]

AAF: your opening statements for this thread are flawed seriously.

We do not say that God created himself out of Nothing. God is the ground of all being.
It is impossible to indicate any void which is prior, there is only the non-void which is God himself.

 

[AAF]

We do not say that God created himself out of Nothing. God is the ground of all being.
It is impossible to indicate any void which is prior, there is only the non-void which is God himself.

But that presents at once a thorny and unresolvable dilemma.

Whether God can or cannot create Himself, believers must land themselves upon one of the two horns of this DILEMMA:

1. God can create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, NOTHINGNESS is greater than Him.

2. Or God cannot create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, He is not absolute. He is relative, weak, and completely redundant.

 

[Vega]

Why is God a "he"???

 

[Lawdog]

But that presents at once a thorny and unresolvable dilemma.

Whether God can or cannot create Himself, believers must land themselves upon one of the two horns of this DILEMMA:

1. God can create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, NOTHINGNESS is greater than Him.

2. Or God cannot create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, He is not absolute. He is relative, weak, and completely redundant.

Christ is the uncreated LOGOS. You are correct: God cannot be created, a creature, for that implies a prior or superior power. Therefore God is the only uncreated and all-necessary being.

 

[Lawdog]

Why is God a "he"???

kool avatar...

God is not a "he"

Since God wants to make "himself" accesable and understandible to humans, he represents himself as a he. He could have represented himself as a she if he wanted, but he did not, since maleness represents his spiritual love: aggressive pursuit of the soul.

This also means that God has personhood, and personhood is inseperable from gender. It is beneath God's dignity to be an "it". This is not the force from star wars.

 

[lightgigantic]

So we are to believe everything those "in authority" tell us?
Foolish.
And dangerous.

No you have to learn to distinguish between what is correct authority and what is incorrect authority - if you blindly disregard everything in the name of religion you are just as bad as a person who blindly believes everything in the name of religion - both persons don't have an inkling of what is the distinguishing qualifications of authority and both are equally foolish and dangerous- and such learning begins with (you guessed it ...) a theoretical foundation