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

[AAF]

:bugeye:


lightgigantic: “On the contrary you are the one who doesn't have an understanding - you cannot even distinguish the environment that would determine a polytheistic god and a monotheistic god – which is why you have major problems with this thread…”.


So now it’s me who must be blamed for your erroneous assertion that ‘theories must come before understanding’! Is this a kind of (if you break it, you own it) sort of justice? Or what?



lightgigantic: “…well lets hope those trail blazers know how to navigate before they blaze their trails”.


Well, it doesn’t matter! As long as trailblazers continue to navigate, they will, eventually, find what they want to find. For time is endless.
O.K.?

 

[lightgigantic]

That is what the Mohammedans are saying all the time. ‘Surrender to Allah or else’!

And allah is a name of god - the muslims probably also say it is good to drink water too, but even thought hey might have a different name for water its probably the ame stuff that you drink even though it goes by a different name.

But it’s a bit surprising to come from a philosophically minded person like yourself.

I guess philosophy with religion is almost as rare as a sense of the absolute with science

Are you a Muslim? Yes? No?

Have I quoted the koran?

Also love is blind. If you love your beloved too much, then you can’t see very well their flaws and poor character.

Luckily god has no flaws - its only material experience that gives us examples of loving flawed person - the propensity indicates the intrinsic nature of the soul, even though the application may lead to illusion in the material world

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?

Two gods? Does this mean you have officially shifted your stance to polytheism (in which case I have a good excuse to drop out of this thread if its all about how polytheistic gods a re contradictions)

Finally, why does your God need so badly your 'little love'?

He doesn't - we do

God is supposed to have infinite powers, infinite abilities, immortality, and everything. He has it all! Why does He ask you for your love?

Because he is our well wisher - I'm not sure what you perceive the loss to be if you love god - I mean its not like you stand to lose anything that you won't lose in the long run anyway

Are you a Mohammedan? Yes? No?

What does it matter? If I answered yes would that make me a terrorist? You don't strike me as a person who is capabale of seperating genuine religious principles from political agendas . If I answered no how would that add to the discussion? I haven't really moved much beyond general religious principles of monotheism

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

Well you haven't even begun to establish that transcendental things don't have form - (except maybe that you haven't seen anything transcendental, but that just simply means that you haven't seen anything transcendental and tells us nothing about the nature of transcendental objects - as for the laws of physics, a transcendental object would be transcendental to them don't you think? Unless of course you sport a p[olytheistic view of creation .....)

you could begin by explaining how form (that we experience in this world) was caused by something that has no form? (Ie god) - again you ar enot properly equipped with a theoretical foundation to do this (BTW there are some spiritual persons who advocate that god doesn't have a form - but you are not on par with them due to a lack of knowledge)

So aristotle had one view - plato had another - neither of them are religious practioners or great illuminaries on scripture

 

[lightgigantic]

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?

The point is that before being a trailblazer a person is a student - otherwise fruit vendors would be just as likely to be making progress in science as albert einstein

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?

Didn't really address the issue I was raising did 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’.

Erm - according to what authority - definitely not scripture, which, BTW, happens to be the authority you use to draw definitions of god, which is why you are out of your leaugue with this thread - you are redefining the established definitions to push through your own concocted ideas - as such you don't even begin to present a logical challenge to a monotheist because you suffer from an error of vocabulary

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.

Again , this is all your hype to rewrite scripture - if you are so convinced why don't you try and rewrite the scriptures and see if people follow you?

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?

Its because you don't work with the established definitions - its like you propose that current forms of astronomy are flawed and then use biological analysis as a basis for the argument - if you want to talk about monotheism why don't you use the established definitions in stead of borrowing from a polytheistic paradigm?

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.

Then why do you insist on using the limited capabailities of humans to establish all that is true and real in this world?

You, or more precisely your ancient gurus, created this concept of God out of your own imagination.

Tell me did they do it in the same way that you are creating a notion of a monotheistic god dependant on time out of your imagination - perhaps you have more in common with them than you think -lol

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.

You seem to have adopted a similar duty to advocating that god is dependant on time - can you quote one authoratative source (from scripture) that indicates a monotheistic god is created in the fabric of linear time?

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.

It means a king has powers that an ordinary person doesn't just as god has powers that are not available to the living entity



l

ightgigantic: “…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?

??? :m:

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!

Well if you want to understand god sooner or later you have to come to the platform of practical application - just like you can peruse all the different curriculums offerred i n the name of further education but sooner or later you have to apply yourself to a teaching otherwise whats the difference between you and a bum on the street? Isn't that logical - of course you may not actually be sincere in trying to understand god - in otherwords you may think that you already understand god, but I think from your example its obvious that there are lots of fundamental flaws in even very basic ABC's

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “Well - erm - god does have superior consciousness don't you think - or at least don't you at least theoretically think?…”.


‘superior’ in what respect? If you mean in its scope, then it’s okay. But if you mean it can override the law of contradiction, then it is no possible. Because the concept of God is our concept and must obey the rules of our logic; otherwise it can’t get off the ground in the first place.



lightgigantic: “…Not if he has superior consciousness ....”.


His concept cannot get off the ground, if it’s absurd. That is why reason is the king here.



lightgigantic: “…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…”.


‘Likely that they would change their mind’! That is normal. What do you expect? Trailblazing is easy!



lightgigantic: “…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?….”.


‘Knows everything’! Are you kidding? It’s possible to know the BIG PICTURE. But the devil is in the details. Tasks of science, therefore, are endless.



lightgigantic: “…Yes for a non-practitioner it is a big mystery - just as advanced physics are mysterious for most fruit vendors….”.


It is not a big mystery for monks and priests, because their minds have gone dull and weaken too much by practicing for so long mind-killing rituals. That is the truth.



lightgigantic: “…Only by your logic Others may tend to disagree…”.


If they disagree, then their minds have gone dead by doing too many foolish rituals.



lightgigantic: “…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 ...”.


You mean we have to throw away our logic and reason for the sake of saving old mythologies! Is this your stance? If it is, then you must take a year or two to examine it. Right? Yes? No?



lightgigantic: “…Unless of course god is actually superior to us – which is 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 "……..”.


Are you saying that your Deity can exist even if His concept is absolutely absurd? You have to do much better in improving your argument for Him than that. Mere disregard to logic would not do it!



lightgigantic: “…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?………”.


No! If you disregarded your own mind, you would be worse than foolish. The idea of God is either logical or illogical. If it’s illogical, then it must be discarded without hesitation. Also, you should devote a year or two to rid your brain of the appalling trick of quacks and charlatans that God can be discovered and examined mystically and not by using our ‘mundane intelligence’. That is a silly fraud. Get rid of it!



lightgigantic: “…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!!…”.


Why did you append this rubbish to my post?

..........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

???:m:
Are you trying to make an ‘average garbage’ out of it?



lightgigantic: “…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 ....”.


That is a false argument to make. Time is implied as a necessary consequence and 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 in addition to time that must be satisfied first before your God can be supposed to exist as a real possibility. Nonetheless, you cannot suppose the existence of God in the absence of time, even if all the other conditions are present. 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 intellectual caliber is unable to follow and understand this very simple reasoning!



lightgigantic: “………Seen any suns without sunshine or fires without heat lately? 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”.


Have you ever seen light without suns or heat without fire? Get over it and face the harsh FACT that your Deity does not exist, because His very concept is very, very, very contradictory. Do it for the sake of your own mind! Do it for the sake of mankind! Do it for the sake of this THREAD!

 

[(Q)]

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

Yes, that MUST be it.

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.

Do they? Perhaps you SHOULD read the bible, so that you might know what it is you're attempting to comment about, as well as a few other scriptures, just so that you can intelligently make comparisons.

Multiple religions with multiple gods sending varying messages.

Personally I view the bible as more of means to know god than to know the universe - god couldn't care less whether you understand the universe or not - he only cares whether you have sincere attachment for him

Yes, of course, the masses MUST remain ignorant for religion to survive. But, I would suspect that would be apt to be in the care of men, not gods.

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

Then, you're referring to the assumption that our consciousness' is simply god at the wheel of dead matter as opposed to the physical characteristics of consciousness being a function of the brain and the individual?

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

It is the assumption that consciousness is merely god at the wheel of dead matter that requires demonstration.

The explanation from matter is just below:

"The brain also controls "higher" order, conscious activities, such as thought, reasoning, and abstraction. The human brain is generally regarded as more capable of these higher order activities than that of any other species."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, that MUST be it.

What are you trying to say? That allopathy is the only means of medical application? If it is it explains why it is impossible for you to entertain the notion of religion within such narrow parameters

Do they? Perhaps you SHOULD read the bible, so that you might know what it is you're attempting to comment about, as well as a few other scriptures, just so that you can intelligently make comparisons.

I should read the bible eh? Sounding a bit evangical there - lol - I am familiar enough with the bible - on the contrary how familiar are you with other scriptures? Because you are only familiar with genisis does that mean I am duty bound to explain the universal creation only according to the bible?

Multiple religions with multiple gods sending varying messages.

Thats because you don't see the principle and only the details - just like in allopathy they have one approach and in chinese medicine they have a different approach - both have different details but an educated person can see th eunifying principle that catergorises both as medicine - in the same way because you lack an understanding of the principle you are simply bewildered by the details of religion

Yes, of course, the masses MUST remain ignorant for religion to survive. But, I would suspect that would be apt to be in the care of men, not gods.

A valid opinion no doubt, but not really conducive to debate - what do you expect me to do? change your opinion on the strength of my opinion?

Then, you're referring to the assumption that our consciousness' is simply god at the wheel of dead matter as opposed to the physical characteristics of consciousness being a function of the brain and the individual?

I never said it was god's consciousness that directs the living entity - I was talking about the fundamental differences between consciousness and matter

It is the assumption that consciousness is merely god at the wheel of dead matter that requires demonstration.

I never said that it was god - I said god had a superior consciousness - our consciousness only pervades our body - god's consciousness pervades everything

The explanation from matter is just below:

"The brain also controls "higher" order, conscious activities, such as thought, reasoning, and abstraction. The human brain is generally regarded as more capable of these higher order activities than that of any other species."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain

All glories to Wikipedia -lol- if the human brain is only "generally" regarded as more capabale does that mean there are some instances where it is not?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: “Well - erm - god does have superior consciousness don't you think - or at least don't you at least theoretically think?…”.
‘superior’ in what respect? If you mean in its scope, then it’s okay. But if you mean it can override the law of contradiction, then it is no possible. Because the concept of God is our concept and must obey the rules of our logic; otherwise it can’t get off the ground in the first place.

Well how do you draw up the limits of superior consciousness, not being superior at least in (theoretical) comparison to god - what right does a pauper have to draw up the capacities of a ruler? What may be contradictory for a pauper may not be contradictory for a king ....

lightgigantic: “…Not if he has superior consciousness ....”.
His concept cannot get off the ground, if it’s absurd. That is why reason is the king here.

Again, what is reasonable for a pauper may not be reasonable for a king - true, reason is the king, but what I am contending is not that god is irrational but that you have no access to the higher aspects of rationality that dictates god's existence - instead you apply an inferior sense of rationality, namely the rationality that establishes the temporal life of humans in the material world - its just like examining a jail and its inhabitants to determine the exact nature of king in his personal life

]lightgigantic: “…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…”.
‘Likely that they would change their mind’! That is normal. What do you expect? Trailblazing is easy!.

Your original point was that mystery is intrinsic to religion - I was merely indicating that a greater standard of mystery is intrinsic to empiricism (which is what you are using to establish your absolutes)

lightgigantic: “…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?….”.
‘Knows everything’! Are you kidding? It’s possible to know the BIG PICTURE. But the devil is in the details. Tasks of science, therefore, are endless.

You seem to be saying something contradictory again here - Why do you assume that you can know the big picture by empricism and at the same time describe it as endless?

lightgigantic: “…Yes for a non-practitioner it is a big mystery - just as advanced physics are mysterious for most fruit vendors….”.
It is not a big mystery for monks and priests, because their minds have gone dull and weaken too much by practicing for so long mind-killing rituals. That is the truth.

Once again another valid opinion but nothing much more than an opinion nonetheless? On what authority do you make your statements? Your mind? And to think you accuse me of advocating "the truth" according to imagination ...

lightgigantic: “…Only by your logic Others may tend to disagree…”.
If they disagree, then their minds have gone dead by doing too many foolish rituals.

So anyone who disagree with you is obviously brainless - You are sounding more and more like a narrow minded evangicalist ....

lightgigantic: “…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 ...”.
You mean we have to throw away our logic and reason for the sake of saving old mythologies! Is this your stance? If it is, then you must take a year or two to examine it. Right? Yes? No?

No I am saying that you are not achieving much by bypassing the use of proper definitions as a platform for establishing your opinions - in science they call that making concoctions

lightgigantic: “…Unless of course god is actually superior to us – which is 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 "……..”.
Are you saying that your Deity can exist even if His concept is absolutely absurd? You have to do much better in improving your argument for Him than that. Mere disregard to logic would not do it!

Well if you just want to say "god is absurd" and not bother about discussions of logic that is fine - if you want to discuss logic however it at least behooves you to use the established definitions

lightgigantic: “…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?………”.
No! If you disregarded your own mind, you would be worse than foolish. The idea of God is either logical or illogical. If it’s illogical, then it must be discarded without hesitation. Also, you should devote a year or two to rid your brain of the appalling trick of quacks and charlatans that God can be discovered and examined mystically and not by using our ‘mundane intelligence’. That is a silly fraud. Get rid of it!

I never said to disregard your mind - I suggested you ar ebetter off acknowledging the limitations of your mind, just like you have to acknowledge your limitations if you expect to invite the president over for dinner tonight

lightgigantic: “…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!!…”.
Why did you append this rubbish to my post?

Because just like agarbage truck driver probably doesn't have a foundation of theoretical knowledge for the discussion of brain surgery you also lack such a foundation for the discussion of god - you are insisting that we use your primitive definition of god (a definition that you don't find in scripture BTW) as a vehicle for discussion - On what authority should we accept your definition?

???:m:
Are you trying to make an ‘average garbage’ out of it?

I haven't got the foggiest why you responded like you did to that comment, hence the ??? :m:

lightgigantic: “…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 ....”.
That is a false argument to make. Time is implied as a necessary consequence and 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.

Congratulations - you have just established th e paradigm for a discussion of polytheistic gods

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 in addition to time that must be satisfied first before your God can be supposed to exist as a real possibility. Nonetheless, you cannot suppose the existence of God in the absence of time, even if all the other conditions are present.

Well why can't time emmanate form god - I mean he is transcendental after all, and scriptures do declare time as being one of his speperated energies, just as heat is a seperated energy from fire - you seem to work with the idea that it is not possible for god to be greater than yourself

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 intellectual caliber is unable to follow and understand this very simple reasoning!
lightgigantic: “………Seen any suns without sunshine or fires without heat lately? 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”.
Have you ever seen light without suns or heat without fire?

Yes but I was asking you the reverse - the general principles you are applying are the same general principles one would have to advocate to say that a fire can exist without heat and th esun can exist without light because you are saying that time can exist without god

Get over it and face the harsh FACT that your Deity does not exist, because His very concept is very, very, very contradictory. Do it for the sake of your own mind! Do it for the sake of mankind! Do it for the sake of this THREAD!

The only reason it is very very contradictory is because you accept a very very inaccurate definition for a monotheistic god due to a lack of a theoretical foundation - as such you don't really pose a logical challenge to a monotheist because you don't even work with the same terminology

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “And allah is a name of god - the muslims probably also say it is good to drink water too, but even thought hey might have a different name for water its probably the same stuff that you drink even though it goes by a different name…….”.

That is not the issue. What I meant is that Muslims are known to preach surrendering to Allah without any question. And they are very proud of it!


lightgigantic: “…I guess philosophy with religion is almost as rare as a sense of the absolute with science…”.

Actually, religion is a mass philosophy for the masses. That is what it is.


lightgigantic: “…Have I quoted the koran?…”.

No! Of course not! But the unconditional surrendering to Allah is in the Quran.


lightgigantic: “…Luckily god has no flaws - its only material experience that gives us examples of loving flawed person - the propensity indicates the intrinsic nature of the soul, even though the application may lead to illusion in the material world…”.

No flaws! That is exactly what lovers are always saying about the objects of their LOVE.


lightgigantic: “…Two gods? Does this mean you have officially shifted your stance to polytheism (in which case I have a good excuse to drop out of this thread if its all about how polytheistic gods a re contradictions)…..”.

No! It does not mean that. It means only you have to be very careful, when you make choices of this sort. Morality is firmly based upon the duality of good & evil. Therefore, theists of all kinds to be morally clear, they must either assign those TWO to two different Gods, or consign them to the same God and live with this basic moral inconsistency for the rest of their lives. Does that make sense to you?


lightgigantic: “…He doesn't - we do…”.

But why do we need to fall in this sort of ‘PUPPY LOVE’ with the ALMIGHTIY GOD? Why can’t we just treat Him in the same way we treat the sun, the stars, and the Cosmos?


lightgigantic: “…Because he is our well wisher - I'm not sure what you perceive the loss to be if you love god - I mean its not like you stand to lose anything that you won't lose in the long run anyway……”.

I’ve already pointed that LOSS out. Love makes people biased, irrational, and blind to all sorts of rational considerations concerning the OBJECT of their LOVE.



lightgigantic: “…What does it matter? If I answered yes would that make me a terrorist? You don't strike me as a person who is capabale of seperating genuine religious principles from political agendas . If I answered no how would that add to the discussion? I haven't really moved much beyond general religious principles of monotheism”.

No! It would not make you a ‘terrorist’. But, for sure, it would make you more prone to frequent fits of religious zealotry & outright fanaticism.

 

[Gordon]

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!

You started out with the false logic of self creation. As I have pointed out self creation is logically impossible by either God or anything else. There is no difference in logic between God self creating or universe self creating - both impossible but either can exist infinitely back in time logically. There is no difference in terms of philosophical logic. Your prejudice is distorting your understanding of logic. If you do not believe what I say try reading some books on philosophical logic. There are plenty to choose from and many are completely unbiased from any theistic or atheistic viewpoint.

: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

You seem to have confused an infinitely old universe with one with infinite matter-energy. The first is logically possible and has a number of scientific adherents. The latter is exceedingly unlikely and would have all manner of unpredictable implications. I know of no modern scientists who are seriously proposing such a model of the universe. If the universe is of finite matter-energy then it can be considered closed. Certainly nothing by definition exists beyond the universe and so there would be nothing to transfer entropy with.

This quote from Wikipedia is apposite,

Entropy and cosmology
We have previously mentioned that a finite universe may be considered an isolated system. As such, it may be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that its total entropy is constantly increasing. It has been speculated that the universe is fated to a heat death in which all the energy ends up as a homogeneous distribution of thermal energy, so that no more work can be extracted from any source.

If the universe can be considered to have generally increasing entropy, then - as Roger Penrose has pointed out - an important role in the increase is played by gravity, which causes dispersed matter to accumulate into stars, which collapse eventually into black holes. Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have shown that black holes have the maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size. This makes them likely end points of all entropy-increasing processes, if they are totally effective matter and energy traps. Hawking has, however, recently changed his stance on this aspect.

The role of entropy in cosmology remains a controversial subject. Recent work has cast extensive doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, the maximum possible entropy rises much more rapidly and leads to an "entropy gap," thus pushing the system further away from equilibrium with each time increment. Complicating factors, such as the energy density of the vacuum and macroscopic quantum effects, are difficult to reconcile with thermodynamical models, making any predictions of large-scale thermodynamics extremely difficult.

Note that there is not much doubt about entropy increasing in the universe as envisaged by most modern astro-physicists, even if the precise end result is debated. And these are the views (of largely atheistic) scientists.

:

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.

Yes it's a great model if you adopt a completely different view of the universe from almost everyone else (including scientists in the field) which includes not only an infinitely old cycling universe but also one of infinite matter-energy. Unfortunately mathematics on infinities is notoriously difficult so it's very difficult for me and I suspect most others to conceptualise such an arrangement in any scientific context.

In respect of philosophical logic, there is one obvious problem with your 'infinite causality' in that a cause must precede an effect logically so infinitely far back you cannot go back to an effect (because a cause would have to precede it) and of course if infinitely far back you go to a cause, then you have a 'first cause'. Call it what you will!

regards,


Gordon.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “The point is that before being a trailblazer a person is a student - otherwise fruit vendors would be just as likely to be making progress in science as albert einstein………”.

Re: You really don’t like ‘fruit vendors & garbage truck drivers’! What have they done to you? By the way, the honorable Albert was a clerk at the Swiss Patent Office before he made it big! If it were a Caste System, he would have stayed where he was forever. Don’t you think so?



lightgigantic: “….Didn't really address the issue I was raising did you?……”.

Re: In some sense, it did. It seems you think there is only way of doing it. But, more often than not, a specific goal can be reached through so many ways. So it is not just one road that can lead you to Rome. Right?



lightgigantic: “….Erm - according to what authority - definitely not scripture, which, BTW, happens to be the authority you use to draw definitions of god, which is why you are out of your league with this thread - you are redefining the established definitions to push through your own concocted ideas - as such you don't even begin to present a logical challenge to a monotheist because you suffer from an error of vocabulary………”.

Re: It’s according to the authority of reason & logic. Hence, you’re the one who is ‘out of his league’ (i.e.the thinking folks) in this regard. Very briefly, the term ‘existence’, which has been used by you without considering its basic meaning, does not make any sense and has no meaning in the absence of time. And so your God (or any other God) cannot possibly create the essential conditions of His own existence, including time. Recognize this and save yourself a lot of sophistry.


lightgigantic: “…..Again , this is all your hype to rewrite scripture - if you are so convinced why don't you try and rewrite the scriptures and see if people follow you?………”.

Re: Are you asking me to create another misleading mythology? I would not do it. You do it. You’re the ‘spiritual one’ around here. So go ahead and do it and become a true gigantic GIANT of light!

lightgigantic: “….Its because you don't work with the established definitions - its like you propose that current forms of astronomy are flawed and then use biological analysis as a basis for the argument - if you want to talk about monotheism why don't you use the established definitions in stead of borrowing from a polytheistic paradigm?………”.

Re: That is not true. Throughout this discussion, God is defined as [a supernatural entity whose being is supreme and whose abilities and powers are infinite, and whose intentions are always good, and who is transcendental and absolute and eternal, and who has no beginning, no end, and no cause, and who created the Universe and every thing in it, and who revealed Himself in various ways to holy persons, and who dictated and inspired all sorts of holy scriptures and revelations to His chosen ones, and who is the subject of worship and love by all theists, and who finally will reward the theists in their afterlife with immortality and eternal happiness]. This is the complete definition of God in our discussion. So stop playing aimlessly with terms and words, and start to address and discuss the real issues, i.e. the logical implications of this definition and its necessary consequences. Get down to business, Mr. 'Gigantic Light'!


lightgigantic: “……Then why do you insist on using the limited capabilities of humans to establish all that is true and real in this world?………”.

Re: That is because the concept of God is obtained first and foremost by those limited human capabilities. And, therefore, it’s within the range of those human capabilities to investigate, evaluate, test, examine, and finally accept or reject the validity of this concept.


lightgigantic: “…..Tell me did they do it in the same way that you are creating a notion of a monotheistic god dependant on time out of your imagination - perhaps you have more in common with them than you think –lol…….”.

Re: Very nice! I, really, feel honored and flattered to be listed in the same league with the saintly persons of your holy books. I love it! You are not sarcastic; are you?


lightgigantic: “….You seem to have adopted a similar duty to advocating that god is dependant on time - can you quote one authoritative source (from scripture) that indicates a monotheistic god is created in the fabric of linear time?……”.

Re: Don’t get confused! That task is for the theists whoever they are. My main task, here, is to work out the implicit implications and the necessary consequences of the concept of God, and to point out its deficiencies, inconsistencies, and self-contradictions. That is my task. Okay?



lightgigantic: “….It means a king has powers that an ordinary person doesn't just as god has powers that are not available to the living entity……..”.

Re: But His powers will not save Him, if His concept is contradictory.


lightgigantic: “….??? :m: ……………….”.

Re: What is wrong with that? You wrote: ‘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’.
Thus, you contrasted God with the living entity whatever it is. Your statement, consequently, implies that God is not a living entity. Is this what you meant?


lightgigantic: “….Well if you want to understand god sooner or later you have to come to the platform of practical application - just like you can peruse all the different curriculums offered i n the name of further education but sooner or later you have to apply yourself to a teaching otherwise what’s the difference between you and a bum on the street? Isn't that logical - of course you may not actually be sincere in trying to understand god - in other words you may think that you already understand god, but I think from your example its obvious that there are lots of fundamental flaws in even very basic ABC's”.

Re: You don’t like the ‘bums on the street’; do you? What a loss! They could teach you how to become very street smart and to navigate very safely around the slums; couldn’t they? What a shame! What a loss!

 

[AAF]

Gordon: “You started out with the false logic of self creation. As I have pointed out self creation is logically impossible by either God or anything else. There is no difference in logic between God self creating or universe self creating - both impossible but either can exist infinitely back in time logically. There is no difference in terms of philosophical logic. Your prejudice is distorting your understanding of logic. If you do not believe what I say try reading some books on philosophical logic. There are plenty to choose from and many are completely unbiased from any theistic or atheistic viewpoint……..”.

Re: That is incorrect reasoning. You’ve treated the main contradiction in the idea of Divine Creation, i.e. the absolute impossibility for God (the Creator) to create Himself, as if it were a contradiction in my argument! And hence you’ve totally misunderstood the whole point and distorted the logic of my basic argument. So let me try to restate it once again! The Absolute Creator of every thing cannot do the impossible and create Himself out of Absolute Nothing. This result has far-reaching and devastating consequences. First of all, it implies that the initial assumption that ‘God is the Creator of every thing’ is false. For God could not be the Creator of every thing. Also, it implies that God cannot have an absolute free will that initially is supposed to have. A big chunk of His free will is, thus, taken away; and accordingly, God could not be absolutely free to do whatever pleases Him to do. As I mentioned earlier, this road of placing constraints or restrictions on God’s will is a very slippery one; and eventually leads to the main conclusion that He cannot really create anything at all. The hypothesis of Divine Creation, consequently, is not viable because of the inherent contradictions in the very concept of God.


Gordon: “…You seem to have confused an infinitely old universe with one with infinite matter-energy. The first is logically possible and has a number of scientific adherents. The latter is exceedingly unlikely and would have all manner of unpredictable implications. I know of no modern scientists who are seriously proposing such a model of the universe. If the universe is of finite matter-energy then it can be considered closed. Certainly nothing by definition exists beyond the universe and so there would be nothing to transfer entropy with…………….”.

Re: An infinite universe without any qualification means an infinite universe in space, time, and amount of matter. That exactly is what I meant by using the term. As for your assertion that ‘infinite matter-energy is unlikely and no modern scientist is proposing it’, it is clearly wrong. For both flat universe & open universe that have been proposed and advocated by current cosmologists are the exact opposite of your statement, i.e. a universe with infinite matter-energy and with infinite space, but with a beginning and finite age and with matter density less than the critical! Remember this: if space were infinite & matter were finite, then the density of matter would have been thinned out to near zero within a very short period from the beginning. And the given finite energy would not have been enough for creating infinite space. Infinite space and infinite matter, therefore, must go together. Furthermore, according to those cosmologists, density of matter greater than the critical density, not its absolute amount, that closes their relativistic universe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe


Gordon: “…This quote from Wikipedia is apposite, Entropy and cosmology
“We have previously mentioned that a finite universe may be considered an isolated system. As such, it may be subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, so that its total entropy is constantly increasing. ……..”. Note that there is not much doubt about entropy increasing in the universe as envisaged by most modern astro-physicists, even if the precise end result is debated. And these are the views (of largely atheistic) scientists…….”.

Re: Just as I told you before, the above quoted considerations apply exclusively to a FINITE UNIVERSE. It does apply to an INFINITE UNIVERSE. And so your previous objection is wrong.


Gordon: “…Yes it's a great model if you adopt a completely different view of the universe from almost everyone else (including scientists in the field) which includes not only an infinitely old cycling universe but also one of infinite matter-energy. Unfortunately mathematics on infinities is notoriously difficult so it's very difficult for me and I suspect most others to conceptualise such an arrangement in any scientific context…….”.

Re: Again this objection of yours is based on basic misunderstanding about the nature of current cosmological models, and treating the finite spherical model (cyclical or not) as if it were the only viable model of Einstein’s General Relativity out there. Correct this mistake; and you will certainly have a better grasp of what they are talking about.


Gordon: “…In respect of philosophical logic, there is one obvious problem with your 'infinite causality' in that a cause must precede an effect logically so infinitely far back you cannot go back to an effect (because a cause would have to precede it) and of course if infinitely far back you go to a cause, then you have a 'first cause'. Call it what you will”!

Re: Infinite causality means an infinite chain of cause & effect that has no beginning and, therefore, has no first cause. And so the problem is with your objection and not with infinite causality. You can’t just say okay it’s infinite, and then you turn 180 degrees in the opposite direction and treat it implicitly as if it were finite. You have to keep consistent all the way.

The main flaws of your above reasoning can be summarised in the following: (1) confusing the contradictory concept of God with the argument of the Main Thread; (2) treating all the major models of the Big Bang as finite in space & matter; and (3) treating implicitly infinite chains of cause & effect as if they were finite and must end up with first causes. For all these reasons, your objections above are invalid and defective at a very basic level. It’s so easy to make big mistakes and blunders when dealing casually with big and infinite things. You should proceed more carefully and do a better job next time!

 

[stanleyg]

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.

There have been many with your same opinion. If they were to lose their health or strength in the face of sickness or death their opinion shifts. Let's wait until you are on your hospital bed, then see if you feel the same way. If so, you're a stronger man than any I've met.

 

[Sarkus]

There have been many with your same opinion. If they were to lose their health or strength in the face of sickness or death their opinion shifts. Let's wait until you are on your hospital bed, then see if you feel the same way. If so, you're a stronger man than any I've met.

Arguments from Fear, which is what you are describing - a fear of death, hold no stock.

Most people hedge their bets with regard God toward the end of their life, especially in the last moments, without ever truly "believing".
And on many occasions this possibly happens due to a decaying of that person's mental faculties.

But as stated - Arguments from Fear are a logical fallacy and are irrelevant.

 

[AAF]

There have been many with your same opinion. If they were to lose their health or strength in the face of sickness or death their opinion shifts. Let's wait until you are on your hospital bed, then see if you feel the same way. If so, you're a stronger man than any I've met.

Hi stanleyg:

That would be true, if theists (monos & pans) were saved from POOR health & ultimate DEATH! But they suffer and continue to suffer like anybody else. Your misguided faith,I regret to say, is in the final analysis, therefore, a mere OSTRICH-LIKE TRICK that can never ever save you from your final ill-fated departure. So be courageous and face the harsh FACTS right now! At least, that will help you keep the LIGHT of your mind on, when you're healthy and alive. And who knows? Your enlightend mind may even help you find more realistic ways to beat DEATH. Is this fair and square?

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “…Well you haven't even begun to establish that transcendental things don't have form - (except maybe that you haven't seen anything transcendental, but that just simply means that you haven't seen anything transcendental and tells us nothing about the nature of transcendental objects - as for the laws of physics, a transcendental object would be transcendental to them don't you think? Unless of course you sport a p[olytheistic view of creation .....)……..”.

Re: Suppose for the sake of argument that your God is transcendent & has a form! Can you then describe that Divine Form in clear and meaningful words?



lightgigantic: “…you could begin by explaining how form (that we experience in this world) was caused by something that has no form? (Ie god) - again you ar enot properly equipped with a theoretical foundation to do this (BTW there are some spiritual persons who advocate that god doesn't have a form - but you are not on par with them due to a lack of knowledge)……”.

Re: Material objects that have forms are caused by other material objects that also have forms, not by something that has no form. Matter simply cannot exist without its forms. But matter is not transcendental. Your Deity is defined by you to be transcendental. So how can those two notions (FORMAL & TRANSCENDENTAL) go together? Explain it! Not just sit there and accuse me of being ignorant of how those ‘spiritual persons’ of yours imagine it to be!



lightgigantic: “…So aristotle had one view - plato had another - neither of them are religious practioners or great illuminaries on scripture”.


Re: Aristotle and Plato are in total agreement on this specific issue. And both are true researchers for the truth unlike those false prophets and pretentious charlatans of every religion.
Does this make sense to you?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: “The point is that before being a trailblazer a person is a student - otherwise fruit vendors would be just as likely to be making progress in science as albert einstein………”.
Re: You really don’t like ‘fruit vendors & garbage truck drivers’! What have they done to you? By the way, the honorable Albert was a clerk at the Swiss Patent Office before he made it big! If it were a Caste System, he would have stayed where he was forever. Don’t you think so?

Nothing particularly against fruit vendors and garbage truck drivers - Just like a doctor is a doctor, a scientist is a scientist and a car mechanioc is a mechanic - if you think everyone is equal why not go to a garbage truck driver instead of a doctor the next time your bones get broken - the caste system operates everywhere - its just a question whether it is determined by proper qualification as opposed to birth, wealth or other crookednesses that determine how well it functions

lightgigantic: “….Didn't really address the issue I was raising did you?……”
Re: In some sense, it did. It seems you think there is only way of doing it. But, more often than not, a specific goal can be reached through so many ways. So it is not just one road that can lead you to Rome. Right?

There's more than than one way - namely the long way and the short way - and that said not all ways are right - there is also the wrong way and the right way - there is so much variety

lightgigantic: “….Erm - according to what authority - definitely not scripture, which, BTW, happens to be the authority you use to draw definitions of god, which is why you are out of your league with this thread - you are redefining the established definitions to push through your own concocted ideas - as such you don't even begin to present a logical challenge to a monotheist because you suffer from an error of vocabulary………”.
Re: It’s according to the authority of reason & logic.

But that's the problem - its according to YOUR reason and logic - and you are not qualified - just like a prisioner has a reason and logic but that reasoin and logic is not applicabale to the king

Hence, you’re the one who is ‘out of his league’ (i.e.the thinking folks) in this regard.

It still stands - without a foundation in theoretical knowledge you are lost - that's a general principle you can apply to any branch of knowledge you care to mention - on top of this you operate out of the idea that god is an imagination (hence there is no basis for theoretical knowledge) - in otherwords you have no opportunity to apply reason and logic to god because you doubt his very existence (you don't accept standard definitions of god) - so all you can state is your opinion - which might hold some merit if you had credibility - but you don't even have that either ....

Very briefly, the term ‘existence’, which has been used by you without considering its basic meaning, does not make any sense and has no meaning in the absence of time. And so your God (or any other God) cannot possibly create the essential conditions of His own existence, including time. Recognize this and save yourself a lot of sophistry.
lightgigantic: “…..Again , this is all your hype to rewrite scripture - if you are so convinced why don't you try and rewrite the scriptures and see if people follow you?………”.
Re: Are you asking me to create another misleading mythology? I would not do it. You do it.

lol - you already have with your "neo - mono/polytheism anti-lateral chronologicalism" - you can be quite mythological too in the pursuit of your logic

You’re the ‘spiritual one’ around here. So go ahead and do it and become a true gigantic GIANT of light!

You are the one who has the illusions of greatness - you think that your own existence is sufficient enough to act as a logical prototype for determinig god's potencies
No need to create what is already in existence - the burdens on you because your the one with the brand new ideas (ie time is not caused by god but is the cause of god)

lightgigantic: “….Its because you don't work with the established definitions - its like you propose that current forms of astronomy are flawed and then use biological analysis as a basis for the argument - if you want to talk about monotheism why don't you use the established definitions in stead of borrowing from a polytheistic paradigm?………”.
Re: That is not true. Throughout this discussion, God is defined as [a supernatural entity whose being is supreme and whose abilities and powers are infinite,

.. except the ability to emmanate the potency of time (according to your speculative definitions and directly opposed to authoratative definitions found in scripture ...)

and whose intentions are always good, and who is transcendental and absolute and eternal, and who has no beginning, no end, and no cause,

... that's the problem - you don't accept this definition as being without a cause - for some reason, perhaps because you measure god according to your own limited existence , you imagine that he must be as limited as yourself - but obviously you are not god so I don't know why you work out of such a paradigm ????

and who created the Universe and every thing in it, and who revealed Himself in various ways to holy persons, and who dictated and inspired all sorts of holy scriptures and revelations to His chosen ones, and who is the subject of worship and love by all theists, and who finally will reward the theists in their afterlife with immortality and eternal happiness

]. This is the complete definition of God in our discussion. So stop playing aimlessly with terms and words, and start to address and discuss the real issues, i.e. the logical implications of this definition and its necessary consequences. Get down to business, Mr. 'Gigantic Light'!

Well you don't even accept this definition as a model to work out of ... what can be done?

lightgigantic: “……Then why do you insist on using the limited capabilities of humans to establish all that is true and real in this world?………”.
Re: That is because the concept of God is obtained first and foremost by those limited human capabilities.

Again - your concoction buddy - if you want to sling your opinions around and expect to be taken seriously you should at least form a thread with a logical premise
This is my point - you are changing the thread topic by stating god is a contradiction by logic - and just when you begin to work with the standard definition you corrupt it with your own unauthoratative concoction - actually you are better suited to writing a thread about undermining the authority of scripture because that is your real issue - you don't even begin to form a logical argument proving that god is a contradiction - you never even make it to first base

And, therefore, it’s within the range of those human capabilities to investigate, evaluate, test, examine, and finally accept or reject the validity of this concept.

And therefore you find that there many saintly person who can attest to the perception of god - all you are advocating is that god is not available to your sense perception - but then I don't imagine that you are a saintly person or that you have ever really applied yourself to spiritual endeavours so if you have no credibility or qualification in a field, what is the value of your opinions?
- but the problem is that the standard definition of god, as you have already explained to us all, is that he is not a product of human social customs - of course that may be your opinion - but then so what - there are so many opinions in this world

lightgigantic: “…..Tell me did they do it in the same way that you are creating a notion of a monotheistic god dependant on time out of your imagination - perhaps you have more in common with them than you think –lol…….”.
Re: Very nice! I, really, feel honored and flattered to be listed in the same league with the saintly persons of your holy books. I love it! You are not sarcastic; are you?

You accuse them of concocting and attempt to qualified by the same agenda - make up your mind

lightgigantic: “….You seem to have adopted a similar duty to advocating that god is dependant on time - can you quote one authoritative source (from scripture) that indicates a monotheistic god is created in the fabric of linear time?……”.
Re: Don’t get confused! That task is for the theists whoever they are. My main task, here, is to work out the implicit implications and the necessary consequences of the concept of God, and to point out its deficiencies, inconsistencies, and self-contradictions. That is my task. Okay?

Big ambitions in the absence of even theoretical knowledge - or even the ability to adhere to definitions that you establish - why do you insist on branching off into polytheism?

lightgigantic: “….It means a king has powers that an ordinary person doesn't just as god has powers that are not available to the living entity……..”.
Re: But His powers will not save Him, if His concept is contradictory.

BUt you accept your own existence as a prototype for god's existence - you are contradictory from the first instance (unless of course your real issue is not the logical nature of god but the established authorities that define god - it certainly explains why you insist on accepting a polytheistic paradigm for your weird ideas)

lightgigantic: “….??? :m: ……………….”.
Re: What is wrong with that? You wrote: ‘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’.
Thus, you contrasted God with the living entity whatever it is. Your statement, consequently, implies that God is not a living entity. Is this what you meant?

Sorry - Its another aspect of the theoretical foundations of god - both god and the living entities (you me and everyone else) are living entities - but god is a unique living enity in that he is svarat (completely independant) and sarva karana karanam (the cause of all causes) - when you find that person who does not have a cause you have found god (BTW - I don't think you will find him on the electoral roll)

lightgigantic: “….Well if you want to understand god sooner or later you have to come to the platform of practical application - just like you can peruse all the different curriculums offered i n the name of further education but sooner or later you have to apply yourself to a teaching otherwise what’s the difference between you and a bum on the street? Isn't that logical - of course you may not actually be sincere in trying to understand god - in other words you may think that you already understand god, but I think from your example its obvious that there are lots of fundamental flaws in even very basic ABC's”.
Re: You don’t like the ‘bums on the street’; do you? What a loss! They could teach you how to become very street smart and to navigate very safely around the slums;

lol - I hope they don't mind if I see a doctor if my legs bet broken though - if you want to remain like abum on the street and be an expert navigator of slums but if you want to actually perceive the benefit of subtle or advanced knowledge you have to receive training - otherwise you are just left on the mental platform

couldn’t they? What a shame! What a loss!

Again - nothing wrong with being a street bum - but if you are a street bum trying to pass yourself off as the president that's another thing - at tyhe very least you will not be taken very seriously - in essence you shouldn't be so foolish to think that you can just place yourself on par with the vast body of work that has been established in the name of religion - you are not even a grain of dust of their feet

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: “…Well you haven't even begun to establish that transcendental things don't have form - (except maybe that you haven't seen anything transcendental, but that just simply means that you haven't seen anything transcendental and tells us nothing about the nature of transcendental objects - as for the laws of physics, a transcendental object would be transcendental to them don't you think? Unless of course you sport a p[olytheistic view of creation .....)……..”.

Re: Suppose for the sake of argument that your God is transcendent & has a form! Can you then describe that Divine Form in clear and meaningful words?

Yes - there are tons of descriptions - but they are useless to enter into unless you have a standard understanding of his form being eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss - you know - learn 1 -10 before you try higher mathmatics - it all comes back to a foundation of theoretical knowledge

lightgigantic: “…you could begin by explaining how form (that we experience in this world) was caused by something that has no form? (Ie god) - again you ar enot properly equipped with a theoretical foundation to do this (BTW there are some spiritual persons who advocate that god doesn't have a form - but you are not on par with them due to a lack of knowledge)……”.
Re: Material objects that have forms are caused by other material objects that also have forms, not by something that has no form.

The probl;em is taht you have no foundation of theoretical knowledge and can not even begin to poin your nose in the general direction of anything that is transcendental - you never get off the ground - all because you lack a foundation of theoretical knowledge

Matter simply cannot exist without its forms. But matter is not transcendental.

lol - but god is not accepted as material form - which is why he is never advocated as material except by unqualified persons

Your Deity is defined by you to be transcendental. So how can those two notions (FORMAL & TRANSCENDENTAL) go together? Explain it! Not just sit there and accuse me of being ignorant of how those ‘spiritual persons’ of yours imagine it to be!

lol - well maybe you could begin by establishing how form can emmanate from something that has no form, since you want to champion the cause of logic

lightgigantic: “…So aristotle had one view - plato had another - neither of them are religious practioners or great illuminaries on scripture”.
Re: Aristotle and Plato are in total agreement on this specific issue. And both are true researchers for the truth unlike those false prophets and pretentious charlatans of every religion.
Does this make sense to you?

Plato advocated a transcendental realm -lol - it formed a basis for platos republic - and it was St Augustine who later formed that as a basis for the teachings of the church - Plato however was imperfect even by his own admission - and was not indicating anything more than the general notion of the transcendental realm, and thus tended to get lost a bit in the details

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “Well how do you draw up the limits of superior consciousness, not being superior at least in (theoretical) comparison to god - what right does a pauper have to draw up the capacities of a ruler? What may be contradictory for a pauper may not be contradictory for a king ....”.

Re: You don’t like paupers; do you? What a loss! They could teach you how to survive terrible bankruptcy; couldn’t they? In addition, you cannot use the hypothetical to override the factual. Because that would be a fallacy of using the hypothesis to be proven to prove itself! Before you can use the concept of God to prove or disprove anything, you must first validate that concept using the given facts and the rules of logic. This is the true theoretical knowledge that you have been talking about it for so long. So practice it!


lightgigantic: “…Again, what is reasonable for a pauper may not be reasonable for a king - true, reason is the king, but what I am contending is not that god is irrational but that you have no access to the higher aspects of rationality that dictates god's existence - instead you apply an inferior sense of rationality, namely the rationality that establishes the temporal life of humans in the material world - its just like examining a jail and its inhabitants to determine the exact nature of king in his personal life………”.

Re: It is not God who is irrational. It’s His concept, which is very contradictory and absurd. For this reason, the hypothesis of God cannot get off the ground, and by implication God Himself cannot exist.


lightgigantic: “…Your original point was that mystery is intrinsic to religion - I was merely indicating that a greater standard of mystery is intrinsic to empiricism (which is what you are using to establish your absolutes)………….”.

Re: Your original point was that scientists change their mind too much and cannot solve any mystery. Also, what do you mean by ‘empiricism’ in this context? Is it science? We haven’t used any of it yet. The reason for this is that the concept of God belongs to metaphysics and only rules of logic & principles of reason are needed for examining its validity. Only if that concept is deemed logically valid, we can proceed to examine it scientifically. Is this clear?


lightgigantic: “…You seem to be saying something contradictory again here - Why do you assume that you can know the big picture by empiricism and at the same time describe it as endless?………”.

Re: Again, what do you mean exactly by ‘empiricism’ in this discussion? Do you mean science? Also, there is nothing incompressible or contradictory about knowing the big pictures long before working out the small details. It happens this way all the time. Big pictures are simply easier to grasp than their massive details. And that is the reason why doing philosophy is more fun and more entertaining than doing science!

 

[water]

*I'm just posting this because the thread had 666 replies, and that ain't a good number.*