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

[lightgigantic]

And would those other remedies work on a rash?

Why most definitely!! There are numerous medical paradigms that work on treating an ailment as symptomatic of something as opposed to merely a symptom (as is common in allopathy)

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?

Don't know - never read the bible completely

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

Well people only go by themselves when they are alive - they don't go anywhere when they are dead - that is th ewhole point of god being the creative impetus and maintainer of consciousness in vehicles of matter - matter doesn't go anywhere without consciousness justa s cars don't go anywhere without a driver - or haven't you noticed that?

 

[Sarkus]

No you have to learn to distinguish between what is correct authority and what is incorrect authority

And we learn this... how? Through the teachings of yet another authority?

 

[lightgigantic]

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

Have you considered it before as career move? - it doesn't pay much but the retirement plan is out of this world

Look, my good friend!

The very concept of God is illogical and contradictory.

If thats the case it is no more illogical and contradictoy than your attempts to prove that it is illogical and contradictory

Performance of ancient customs and rituals would not
make that contradictory concept consistent and logical.

Who said anything about ancient customs - if you are envious, lusty, greedy, and wrathful in the frustration of these vices you are labouring under the reactions of inappropriate activities - doesn't mean you cannot be rich, famous, beautiful or intelligent - it just means that you cannot understand god until you come to a higher state of existential existence

It may make you feel un-'sinful'. But such a feeling is
childish and silly and it would not settle a thing.

Actually no - your degree of sinfulness or piety doesn't affect my position (in terms of sinfulness or piety) - I am just bringing it up as apoint that a person who is sinful cannot understand god because they are intrinsically opposewd to the very fabric of god's existence and are subsisting in a medium of illusion
- not to say that I am free from illusion - I am just presenting the path how one can and cannot understand god (after all we are still on the theoretical platform)

 

[lightgigantic]

And we learn this... how? Through the teachings of yet another authority?

Unless you want to reinvent the wheel

 

[lightgigantic]

If you don't have understanding to begin with, then how can you
come up with reasonably good theories?

On the contrary you are the one who doesn't have an understanding - you cannot even distinguish the environment that woul ddetermine a polytheistic god and a monotheistic god - whichis why you have major problems with this thread

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?

well lets hope those trail blazers know how to navigate before they blaze their trails

 

[Vega]

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.

Isn't that a bit too complicated for a layman to understand? Why does the the hebrew equivalent of the word "God" plural in its original translation?...i.e "Elohim"

 

[Sarkus]

Unless you want to reinvent the wheel

So you can only assess the validty of an authority through the teachings of an(other) authority? So how can you assess the validity of this authority - to know whether what he is teaching you about the other authorities is correct or not?

It is circular authorityship (?) - "I am an authority because I say so".

 

[Gordon]

Simply stated, Ockham’s Razor is this: "Get rid of redundant entities".

God is a redundant entity. Because it's much simpler to assume that the world is eternal. The hypothesis of Creator explains nothing. It simply pushes the PROBLEM one floor upstairs! It's futile and redundant.

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.

But that presents at once a thorny and unresolvable dilemma.

Whether God can or cannot create Himself, a believer must land himself upon one of the two horns of this DILEMMA:

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

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

In many respects, the idea of God is very similar to the idea of a little spot, which is completely black and completely white at the same time! Such a spot cannot exist as a real possibility, because it is self-contradictory.

Every thing whose concept is contradictory does not exist.
The concept of God is contradictory.
Therefore, God does not exist.

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.

The last refuge for the folks of faith to save their 'Eternal God' from the ravages of logic and reason is to suppose that either He is timeless or He is living outside time all by Himself!

Nice try! But it doesn't help them at all. To say that God is outside of time is logically equivalent to and the same as saying that He does not exist.

moreover, getting rid of time is absolutely impossible. And even when you deny time in words, you affirm it logically in a big way. The reason for this absolute impossibility is that the flow of time forms a homogeneous continuum of all rates from the infinitely small to the infinitely large all at once. And each rate of time flow implies the rest as a necessary consequence.

Take as an example the ordinary pendulum clock!
It has three hands that run at different rates.
These three hands of the clock are only a partial snapshot of the actual flow of time.

The second hand implies on its side an infinite series of hands that run at faster and faster rates until end up with the moment hand where the rate of time flow is infinite.

The hour hand of the clock, also, implies, on its side, an infinite series of hands which run at slower and slower rates and have as their limit the eternity hand which does not move at all.

Thus there is no escape from time. And life of God outside time is meaningless.

In fact, time is an essential attribute of God.
No time; no God, but the reverse is not true.
That is to say that there is always time whether there is God or not.

Finally, 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.

I fear your philosophical logic is flawed.

Something being created is an effect. All effects have causes (note not everything has a cause - only effects, but something created certainly is an effect).

No effect can be its own cause.

So nothing can create itself. This is as much logical nonsense as a four sided triangle.

God could therefore not create Himself, neither could the universe create itself.

Something can logically be self existent (in other words eternal or existing infinitely in time). This is a logical possibility.

So if the universe could not create itself (because nothing can) then either the universe has existed forever (in some form) or something else which existed forever created it. Both are logical possibilities. The universe beginning and therefore of finite age with no cause to start it is not a logical option.

The problem with an infinite universe (oscillating or whatever concept you come up with) is that we know from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that entropy is increasing. For an infinite universe you would either have total entropy (heat death) which we can observe is not actually the case or alternatively entropy would have to have been either working in reverse at some times in the past or else reset to zero (many - actually an infinite number of times).

Reversed or reset entropy is an effect. This requires a cause. This would have to be an eternally existing cause for an infinitely existing universe.

So the two logical options are:

an eternally self existing cause that created a universe of finite time (i.e. with a beginning)

or

an eternally self existing cause that made the necessary adjustments to an infinitely self existing universe so that we are where we are now.

Both are logically possible and are the minimum required by Ockham’s Razor.

Other options are not in accordance with Ockham’s Razor as they cut out what is logically required and this is not permitted.


regards,


Gordon.

 

[(Q)]

Why most definitely!! There are numerous medical paradigms that work on treating an ailment as symptomatic of something as opposed to merely a symptom (as is common in allopathy)

Acupunture actually causes rashes, but isn't used to cure them, so I suppose that negates your claim of "most definitely."

Don't know - never read the bible completely

Then, it would appear I am more knowledgeable than you in that regard.

Well people only go by themselves when they are alive - they don't go anywhere when they are dead, that is th ewhole point of god being the creative impetus and maintainer of consciousness in vehicles of matter - matter doesn't go anywhere without consciousness justa s cars don't go anywhere without a driver - or haven't you noticed that?

Yes, dead people don't really go anywhere on their own, but there was no discussion about dead people, or hadn't you noticed that?

Consciousness does not require gods, unless of course, you're going to show us that it does?

 

[AAF]

Why is God a "he"???

Hi Vega:

This is one of the main reasons:
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/male.html

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “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?….”.

‘superior in consciousness’ is your assumption and of no value in this context. Because it’s the existence of God, which is at stake, not His ‘consciousness’. And whether His ‘consciousness’ is superior to ours or not, His concept must be consistent and free of contradictions first in order for Him to exist at all; and in this where you’re your definition of your Deity as the ‘cause of all causes’ fails miserably.
Therefore, your God cannot exist.


lightgigantic: “…Actually we cannot even trace the source of mundane knowledge - we canonly speculate about it (who inveneted the chair for instance? - There are also indications that apparently ancient civilisations, like even relativelyy recent ones like the egyptians, had access to knowledge of architecture and astronomy that is even superior to the current standard in some ways)- what to speak of applying the same empirical model to something beyond the mundane…”.

Actually, we can trace it. Civilisation was indeed born out of barbarism;
and so was knowledge.


lightgigantic: “…I read it - it pretty much leads to what I was saying - if you begin with the idea that matter is the only indication of observable phenomena (which outlaws consciousness - since you cannot observe what you are observing with) it will invariably lead to a view of an impersonal universe bereft og god (plagued with unlimited mysteries because one misses th essential aspect of creration - namely god)…”.

‘plagued with unlimited mysteries’!
Are you kidding?
It’s the mystical Universe of religion, which is unredeemably
‘plagued with unlimited mysteries’.


lightgigantic: “…Unless of course he works by a superior logic…”.

There is only one logic. And that logic is our logic.
By the standards of our logic, the concept of your God is
found to be contradictory and absurd.
Therefore, your God cannot exist and cannot have logic of His own,
superior or otherwise.


lightgigantic: “…Both if you have a mundane definition (ie try to understand god by using one's own self as a yardstick or try to apply logic due to one's own experience of logic) Actually Ramanuja acharya says that god cannot be understoof by logic - he can only be understood by practicing - logic can be a good introduction to come to the platform of practicing religious life - but it is the practicing that actually delivers understanding of god…”.

‘God cannot be understood by logic’, because His very
concept is illogical. That means that God cannot exist as a real entity.
Admit this and save yourself a lot of headache and false hopes!


lightgigantic: “…You just can't let go of this mundane concept of god - if you accept that time is a cause for god you are dealing with a polytheistic god not a monotheistic god - if you follow your mother's mother etc etc where does it lead you? How did matter develop consciousness?”.

Quite simply, your God cannot be eternal without eternity.
And He cannot exist in the absence of time.
Acknowledge this and save yourself a lot of headache and fallacies!

 

[Lawdog]

Isn't that a bit too complicated for a layman to understand? Why does the the hebrew equivalent of the word "God" plural in its original translation?...i.e "Elohim"

It is, unfortunately, rather complicated. But in the old world society it would be understood if not assumed.

The reason God referes to himself in the plural: this is the mystery and prophetic indication of the Trinity: One God Three Persons.

 

[lightgigantic]

So you can only assess the validty of an authority through the teachings of an(other) authority? So how can you assess the validity of this authority - to know whether what he is teaching you about the other authorities is correct or not?

It is circular authorityship (?) - "I am an authority because I say so".

Well doesn't science, or any form of knowledge that is even a little bit subtle, rely on the same process? I mean if you want to question the findings of chemistry do you think it is possible to even begin without knowing what a bunsen burner is?

Theory indicates practice and practice indicates results - if you do not even know what the theory of religion is, it is almost guarenteed that you don't know what the result of religion is - You see comments like that all the time with people judging religion by the way a person holds their rosary or chanting beads, their dress or something superficial - I mean can you tell me what is the goal of religion?

If you cannot how do you determine whether it is faulty or illogical?

 

[lightgigantic]

Acupunture actually causes rashes, but isn't used to cure them, so I suppose that negates your claim of "most definitely."

depends whether you suffer from rashes chronically or not - regardless I have never had a rash from acupuncture - you must be seeing an unqualified acupunturist

Then, it would appear I am more knowledgeable than you in that regard.

Congratulations

well just as there is more than opne branch of medicine in the world there is more than one branch of religionin the world, even though both all religions and all medical practices (provided they are bona fide of course) lead to the same goal.

Personally I view the bible as more of means to know god than to know the universe - Even jesus admitted that there was many things that he could say about his fathers gouse but that the people he were preaching to were not ready for it (or words to that effect) - anyway knowing the universe is not intrinsic to going back to the spiritual world - god couldn't care less whether you understand the universe or not - he only cares whether you have sincere attachment for him

Yes, dead people don't really go anywhere on their own, but there was no discussion about dead people, or hadn't you noticed that?

Well there was a discussion about the realtionship between consciousness and dead matter, and what better example is there than a living person and a dead person - without consciousness matter doesn't do a thing, just like a car doesn't do a thing by itself and just like a person bereft of life does nothing

Consciousness does not require gods, unless of course, you're going to show us that it does?

Consciousness, particular the inferior variety that we are accumstomed to that is subject to illusion, is dependant on superior consciousness - unless you can prove that consciousness comes form matter

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: “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?….”.

‘superior in consciousness’ is your assumption and of no value in this context. Because it’s the existence of God, which is at stake, not His ‘consciousness’.

Well - erm - god does have superior consciousness don't you think - or at least don't you at least theoretically think?

And whether His ‘consciousness’ is superior to ours or not, His concept must be consistent and free of contradictions first in order for Him to exist at all;

Not if he has superior consciousness ....

and in this where you’re your definition of your Deity as the ‘cause of all causes’ fails miserably.

Therefore, your God cannot exist.

ditto

lightgigantic: “…Actually we cannot even trace the source of mundane knowledge - we canonly speculate about it (who inveneted the chair for instance? - There are also indications that apparently ancient civilisations, like even relativelyy recent ones like the egyptians, had access to knowledge of architecture and astronomy that is even superior to the current standard in some ways)- what to speak of applying the same empirical model to something beyond the mundane…”.

Actually, we can trace it. Civilisation was indeed born out of barbarism;
and so was knowledge.

Well only if you accept an emprical approach to ancient history that practically gets completely rewritten every 40 years - still they can't tell us who invented the chair or even where the world's first chair was invented - or perhaps they could but it would be likely that they would change their mind in another 20 years

lightgigantic: “…I read it - it pretty much leads to what I was saying - if you begin with the idea that matter is the only indication of observable phenomena (which outlaws consciousness - since you cannot observe what you are observing with) it will invariably lead to a view of an impersonal universe bereft og god (plagued with unlimited mysteries because one misses th essential aspect of creration - namely god)…”.

‘plagued with unlimited mysteries’!
Are you kidding?

well ignorance does seem to be a concomitant factor for the progress of science don't you think? How many more years before science knows everything do you think?

It’s the mystical Universe of religion, which is unredeemably
‘plagued with unlimited mysteries’.

Yes for a non-practioner it is a big mystery - just as advanced physics are mysterious for most fruit vendors

lightgigantic: “…Unless of course he works by a superior logic…”.

There is only one logic. And that logic is our logic.

Only by your logic
Others may tend to disagree

By the standards of our logic, the concept of your God is
found to be contradictory and absurd.

Again this is simply an opinion and not valid for debate topics - I have already explained you are attempting to deconstruct a monotheistic god by using a polytheistic god's paradigm - now if you want to examine something absurd and illogical you should take a moment to examine your own stance ...

Therefore, your God cannot exist and cannot have logic of His own,
superior or otherwise.

Unless of course god is actually superior to us - whichis kind of intrinsic to the theory of monotheism - which is osmething you seem to be lacking in constructing your arguments - basically you have to give up the notion that "god is just like me or perhaps a little bit better "

lightgigantic: “…Both if you have a mundane definition (ie try to understand god by using one's own self as a yardstick or try to apply logic due to one's own experience of logic) Actually Ramanuja acharya says that god cannot be understoof by logic - he can only be understood by practicing - logic can be a good introduction to come to the platform of practicing religious life - but it is the practicing that actually delivers understanding of god…”.

‘God cannot be understood by logic’, because His very
concept is illogical. That means that God cannot exist as a real entity.

No it just means that god is not obliged to reveal himself to the foolish - if you do not display ant sincereity to know god you will never understand god by your mundane intelligence in a million lifetimes - Do you think that god is something that you can dig up like an old vase in an archeological site - He is the supreme personin the universe - if you cannot apply your logic or intelligence to directly perceive the president of the united states how do you propose to see god?

Admit this and save yourself a lot of headache and false hopes!
You lack theoretical knowledge of god
You lack the proper environmental association to apply the practice of knowing god
You lack knowledge of what is the goal of religion or how to distinguish proper from imitatory religious principles

Frankly I am no more surprised that you think god is a contradiction than I would be surprised that your average garbage truck driver doesn't know how to perform brain surgery!!

lightgigantic: “…You just can't let go of this mundane concept of god - if you accept that time is a cause for god you are dealing with a polytheistic god not a monotheistic god - if you follow your mother's mother etc etc where does it lead you? How did matter develop consciousness?”.

Quite simply, your God cannot be eternal without eternity.

Quite simply you don't have any knowledge for your claims and you fall down due to an incorrect definition (something people tend to do when they lack a theoretical basis) - you are saying a monotheistic god but you don't actually accept the standard definition for a monotheistic god - instead you accept the standard definition for a polytheistic god - who are you trying to convince with this thread? Obvioulsy not a monotheist because you don't even begin to represent a cause for contention
it is clearly indicated that eternity is one of god's enrgies , just like heat is an energy of the fire, or wetness is a quality of water or that the sunshine is a quality of the sunshine - these qualities or energies actually indicate the nature of the object - in otherwords without the sunshine it would be very difficult to locate the sun - of course it is an illogical proposal, no more illogical than your insistence to seperate eternity from god, but one you seem to continue with ....

And He cannot exist in the absence of time.

Seen any suns without sunshine or fires without heat lately?

Acknowledge this and save yourself a lot of headache and fallacies!

Why don't you rewrite this thread and save yourself alot of headaches - your attempt to prove that god is a fallacy by logic is just like a barabarian trying to examine pluto by squinting through a toilet roll

 

[AAF]

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

That is what the Mohammedans are saying all the time. ‘Surrender to Allah or else’! But it’s a bit surprising to come from a philosophically minded person like yourself. Are you a Muslim? Yes? No? Also love is blind. If you love your beloved too much, then you can’t see very well their flaws and poor character. The same goes for God. I told you, before, that there are two Gods: the Good God & the Evil God. Thus, if you are blinded by love, how can you be sure that you are surrendering yourself to the Good One?
Finally, why does your God need so badly your 'little love'?
God is supposed to have infinite powers, infinite abilities, immortality, and everything. He has it all! Why does He ask you for your love?
Are you a Mohammedan? Yes? No?

 

[AAF]

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.

The assertion that ‘God is transcendent’ implies as a necessary consequence that He has no form. If you don’t see this, then try to look harder! I repeat, once again, that forms belong exclusively to the configurations of MATTER and to the mental images of the configurations of MATTER. Aristotle has demonstrated this; and I believe him. Furthermore, it’s in my best interest to have you provided your God with any form. Because that will allow me to bring the laws of physics & and the BIG GUNS of nature to the battlefield to carpet-bombing your argument & your God out of action!
Does that make sense to you?

 

[AAF]

Hi Gordon:

Gordon: “I fear your philosophical logic is flawed. Something being created is an effect. All effects have causes (note not everything has a cause - only effects, but something created certainly is an effect). No effect can be its own cause. So nothing can create itself. This is as much logical nonsense as a four sided triangle…”.

My argument is very simple. If every thing, according to theism, needs a creator, then who created the Creator? You can’t just say that God created it all; and that is it! Your theory has to be logically consistent.
Theists have come up with the idea of Creator, because they claim the world must have a cause. They don’t believe it’s possible for the world (MATTER + TIME + SPACE + CAUSALITY) to be eternal. But, at the same time, theists see no problem in asserting that their Creator (the imaginary entity of their mind) is eternal. And that is where they run into trouble. Because, now, not only their God cannot create Himself, but also He cannot be eternal without eternity. He cannot exist in the absence of time and the basic laws of logic. And he cannot create the absolute void. One can go on and on and on to point out all the things that the Creator cannot create. The end result is that the supposed Creator of every thing cannot really create any thing at all. The hypothesis of Divine Creation, therefore, is empty, useless, and absurd.



Gordon: “…God could therefore not create Himself, neither could the universe create itself. Something can logically be self existent (in other words eternal or existing infinitely in time). This is a logical possibility.
So if the universe could not create itself (because nothing can) then either the universe has existed forever (in some form) or something else which existed forever created it. Both are logical possibilities. The universe beginning and therefore of finite age with no cause to start it is not a logical option…”.

There is a big difference between an Eternal God and Eternal Cosmos. The Eternal God, by assumption, has absolutely no cause whatsoever. And, hence, His very concept is inconsistent and contradictory. By contrast, the Eternal Cosmos has an infinite chain of causality that runs on and on and on forever and with no prospect of coming across a beginning or first causes. And so the Eternal Cosmos is not only consistent and logically appealing, but also the infinity of its causes guarantees the total eradication of paradoxes and logical absurdities. It’s so philosophically attractive and esthetically appealing. I wonder how you can live and look at your face every day in the mirror without it!



Gordon: “…The problem with an infinite universe (oscillating or whatever concept you come up with) is that we know from the Second Law of Thermodynamics that entropy is increasing. For an infinite universe you would either have total entropy (heat death) which we can observe is not actually the case or alternatively entropy would have to have been either working in reverse at some times in the past or else reset to zero (many - actually an infinite number of times). Reversed or reset entropy is an effect. This requires a cause. This would have to be an eternally existing cause for an infinitely existing universe…”.

That is false and misguided. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies only to isolated and closed systems. It does not apply to open systems. And certainly it does not apply to infinitely open systems like our Infinite Cosmos. So clear your mind of any confusion or misconception about this ‘total entropy & heat death’ stuff, when you think about big things! Okay?



Gordon: “…So the two logical options are: an eternally self existing cause that created a universe of finite time (i.e. with a beginning) or an eternally self existing cause that made the necessary adjustments to an infinitely self existing universe so that we are where we are now. Both are logically possible and are the minimum required by Ockham’s Razor. Other options are not in accordance with Ockham’s Razor as they cut out what is logically required and this is not permitted”.

There is, in this case, one and only one logically consistent option. And that logically permissible option is an Eternal World (MATTER + TIME + SPACE + CAUSALITY) with no beginning and no first cause. It’s so philosophically appealing and esthetically superb that it makes me wonder how you can manage to live and to look at yourself every morning in the mirror without it!

Thank you for your comments.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “Have you considered it before as career move? - it doesn't pay much but the retirement plan is out of this world………”.

A monk career? Hell, no!
Monks are supposed to denounce this world in favour of the other world.
As for their ‘retirement plan’ or more precisely their ‘reward’, I don’t think they will ever know. For it’s obvious, when they go to their heavenly bed, their sleep is going to be eternal. In other words, the monks, the hermits, and their peers have been terribly duped in giving up the small rewards of this world for the sake of bigger ones in an imaginary and totally unrealistic world. I hope that you have not been duped to give up your world just like them!


lightgigantic: “…..If that's the case it is no more illogical and contradictoy than your attempts to prove that it is illogical and contradictory…”.

Are you saying if the concept of God is illogical and contradictory, then pointing that fact out is also illogical and contradictory?
Does that make sense to you?


lightgigantic: “…Who said anything about ancient customs - if you are envious, lusty, greedy, and wrathful in the frustration of these vices you are labouring under the reactions of inappropriate activities - doesn't mean you cannot be rich, famous, beautiful or intelligent - it just means that you cannot understand god until you come to a higher state of existential existence…”.

‘you cannot understand god until you come to a higher state of existential existence’! That is completely absurd. It’s exactly the same as telling us don’t think about my God before you’re dead! I’ve told you many, many, many times that the idea of God is the sole creation of the human mind; and therefore, the human mind is more than capable of evaluating and examining its logical status.


lightgigantic: “…Actually no - your degree of sinfulness or piety doesn't affect my position (in terms of sinfulness or piety) - I am just bringing it up as a point that a person who is sinful cannot understand god because they are intrinsically opposed to the very fabric of god's existence and are subsisting in a medium of illusion - not to say that I am free from illusion - I am just presenting the path how one can and cannot understand god (after all we are still on the theoretical platform)”.

I am not talking about ‘your degree of sinfulness or piety’ or mine. I’m pointing out only the fact that religious observing makes religious folks feel un-sinful in an ocean of sins from the making of their own imagination; and that feeling is childish and silly, and it would not resolve the contradictions in the basic concept of their God.
Right?

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “Understanding comes with theory - if you mess up the theory you don't understand a thing…”.


That would be true only from the standpoint of novices and pupils. If they messed up, they would not understand a thing! By contrast, theory builders and trailblazers would not advance their endeavour an inch without solid and clear understanding of what they are doing. So who are you? A pupil or trailblazer?



lightgigantic: “…That’s 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?…”.


In that case, you can work as a gynaecologist, where you don’t need to know much about all that stuff! Is that okay with you?


lightgigantic: “…And your biggest problem is to think that a god who is caused by time is a monotheistic god - its a polytheistic god because other "gods" must also have the same opportunity to rise to power…”.


That is a false argument to make. Time is implied as a necessary basic condition by the very term of ‘EXISTENCE’. Very simply, God (monotheistic or polytheistic) cannot exist or even to be assumed to exist without time being existing first as an absolute initial condition.This does not mean that if time exists, then God must exist. On the contrary, time is an essential but insufficient condition for the existence of God. That is to say, there are, also, other conditions beside time that must be satisfied first before your God can be supposed to exist as a real possibility. I’ve explained this to you so many times and in so many different ways, and it makes me wonder how a person of your intellect calibre is unable to have a firm grasp of this very simple idea! Are trying to pull someone's leg; or it’s something else?



lightgigantic: “…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)…”.


Once again, that is a false argument for you to make. Since it’s blatantly obvious that the limited power of human beings in no way can justify the fallacy of supposing the existence of an imaginary supernatural being whose very concept runs against all the rules of logic and reason. You, or more precisely your ancient gurus, created this concept of God out of your own imagination. And it’s your duty to make sure that none of the fundamental principles of reasoning is violated by your arbitrary assumption of that imaginary being.



lightgigantic: “…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)…”.


What is that supposed to mean? Not to question the existence of your Deity, because He is a king! He may well be a king to you; but by the standards of logic and reason, He is just the child of your wishful thinking.



lightgigantic: “…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…”.


Therefore, your God is not a living entity! That is okay for me; but it may not be okay to you or for other theists. So, next time, check and re-check your words very carefully before firing them into cyberspace! Okay?



lightgigantic: “…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”.


Now, you start talking like a religious zealot! In other words, you’re asking the undecided to turn the light of reason in their mind off and to follow and practice your religious principles or rather your ancient religious rituals in order for them to get enlightened! Is that a reasonable request to make to those who do not believe in your religion? Is it wise? Is it effective? Ask the experienced missionaries about it!