God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
lightgigantic: “…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 ...”.
Re: I accused you of what? Don’t get confused again! I see you advocating no truth whatsoever. And that is based on the authority of reason and logic. Is this fine with you?
lightgigantic: “…So anyone who disagree with you is obviously brainless - You are sounding more and more like a narrow minded evangicalist ....”.
Re: Why are you trying to alienate smooth-talking, good-looking, and smartly dressed Evangelists? They are on your side. If they were on my side, I would have been very proud of them!
lightgigantic: “…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……”.
Re: That is incorrect. Once again, this is the complete definition of God as used throughout this debate. We define God 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 issue, i.e. the logical implications of this definition and its necessary consequences. Get down to business, Signor Gigantic Light!
lightgigantic: “…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……”.
Re: The definition of God is already established. So get down to business, Monsieur Giant Light!
lightgigantic: “…I never said to disregard your mind - I suggested you are better 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………..”.
Re: Well, if you are fit to vote for him, you are fit to host him! Moreover, if your mind is too limited to examine the idea of God, then why did you use it to come up with that idea in the first place? And so if you are humble, you should be humble all the way, not just half the way. Is this fair & square? Yes? No?
I am not sure which one scares me more, the fact that there may be no God or the fact that a God exist as described above. Some times I feel we are not alone, other times I just accept our solidome, many times I wish we weren't, but all the time I am alone. If you are reading this brief Lord, you better watch over me for the next few days cause I have big plans coming up. While you are at it, it would be very kind of you to dump 1 million dollars in my bank account as reconcilation. Will be seeing ya
Chatha said:
Hi Chatha:
You want $1,000,000 in your bank account?
Do something! Not just sit there & wait for it to happen.
Buy a lottery ticket, for example! You might hit the JACKPOT.
There is a chance. Right? The odds of winning here are greater and much better than just waiting for your Deity to dump it out of nowhere. Okay?
http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/weekly/aa_christmas_powerball.htm
lightgigantic: “…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?…………”.
Re: The definition of God is well established. And you have to accept it as it is, based on the authority of logic & reason. And if you’re too humble to use your mind in examining this concept, then you should not propose it at all. Do you agree? Half measures are not allowed in the world of abstract thinking. O.K?
lightgigantic: “…I haven't got the foggiest why you responded like you did to that comment, hence the ??? ……………….”.
Re: That is because your comment was not on my comment. Your comment was on your comment! Why did you quote me saying something that I did not say?
lightgigantic: “…Congratulations - you have just established the paradigm for a discussion of polytheistic gods……..”.
Re: Don’t congratulate me! Congratulate your misconception! You’re trying without justification to make a false distinction between the ‘Monotheistic God’ & the ‘Highest God’ in the polytheistic hierarchy of gods. By all account, the ‘Monotheistic God’ is nothing but the ‘Highest Polytheistic God’ with His hierarchy taken away from beneath Him. And this is a fact.
lightgigantic: “…Well why can't time emanate from god - I mean he is transcendental after all, and scriptures do declare time as being one of his separated energies, just as heat is a separated energy from fire - you seem to work with the idea that it is not possible for god to be greater than yourself…….”.
Re: That would not make any difference. Even if time emanates from God, as you suppose, God still cannot exist in the absence of time. In other words, a very large portion of His assumed free will is taken away. And so He cannot exercise His free will and choose to live without time. Do I make this point a little clear to you?
lightgigantic: “…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 the sun can exist without light because you are saying that time can exist without god ……..”.
Re: Time can without question exist on its own. That is because time is existence & existence is time & the two notions cannot be separated. Can you see the connection between time and existence more clearly now?
lightgigantic: “…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”.
Re: We are using during all this discussion, as we should, the terminology of theology. And that is the proper and the standard way of expounding the current subject. You agree on this; don’t you?
AAF said:lightgigantic: “…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 ...”.
AAF said:Re: I accused you of what? Don’t get confused again! I see you advocating no truth whatsoever.AAF said:
Reason and logic? You're using a polytheistic paradigm to undermine a monotheistic conclusion
AAF said:
Once again you are revealing your lack of a theoretical foundation of knowledge - just as there is more to a doctor than having a stethoscope draped over their neck there is more to a religious practioner than their dress - I was actually indicating how opposite extremes (in this case fanatical religious zealouts and fanatic atheists) share the same general principles in their ideologies
AAF said:
You can't even locate the topic properly so no wonder you having trouble drawing the distinctions
AAF said:
Then why do you insist on using a polytheistic notion that god is a product of time? That is not a standard definition
lAAF said:
Except that you contend the definition that time is a product of god on the authority of your own whim
AAF said:
You missed the point - he won't come over for dinner even if you voted for him - its an illustration of the difference between a big person and a small person
AAF said:
You're the one who places limitations on god by accepting a bogus definition of your own concoction
AAF said:And so if you are humble, you should be humble all the way, not just half the way. Is this fair & square? Yes? No?
What? and blindly accept your nonsense? Humility is only a virtue when exhibited before qualifed persons
AAF said:
lightgigantic: “…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?…………”.
AAF said:
So you are saying that you are more intelligent than scripture? Can anyone redefine the definitions established by scripture to suit their "logic" or just you?
AAF said:
Its your metal blockades that prevent you from understanding that just as heat is inseperable from fire, wetness is inseperable from water, and the sunshine is inseperable from the sunglobe, the energies of god (namely eternal time) are inseperable from god - Its ironic that you are advocating outlawinf half measures because you liberally apply them to establish your own concoctions
AAF said:
Why do you try to pass monotheism off as polytheism (apart from the fact that it is very easy to establish that a polytheistic god is a contradiction)
AAF said:
The issue is that you try to establish that the definitions of god as the cause of all causes doesn't actually mean the cause of all causes - this is th eprimary distinction between a monotheistic paradigm and a polytheistic paradigm - if you find a person who does not have a cause you have found god - if you accept a personality who has a cause as god you are not working witht he definition of a monotheistic god
AAF said:
If you are eternally sitiuated on the same platform of conscious existence time is not an issue
lAAF said:
Congratulations once again - you have just described the nature of material existence - you only run into problems when you apply the saem "logic" to transcendental existence
AAF said:
Yes I do agree - apparently you however don't which is the source of all your confusion
lightgigantic: “Nothing particularly against fruit vendors and garbage truck drivers - Just like a doctor is a doctor, a scientist is a scientist and a car mechanic 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 crookedness that determine how well it functions………”.
Re: No, the Caste System is religiously sanctioned only in the Hindu religion.
lightgigantic: “….There's more 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….”.
Re: There are many ways of doing a specific task. As for the wrong ways of doing it, their number is potentially infinite. So it does you no good (as a self-proclaimed practitioner!) to declare there is just one way of getting it wrong. Because they are many, many, many of them!
lightgigantic: “….But that's the problem - its according to YOUR reason and logic - and you are not qualified - just like a prisoner has a reason and logic but that reason and logic is not applicable to the king……”.
Re: That is a false analogy. Because principles of reason and rules of logic are universal and applicable everywhere and at all times. So don’t confuse those general rules and principles with arguments made by different individuals for different reasons.
lightgigantic: “…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 other words 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 ....”.
Re: You’ve already confused the universal principles of reason with argumentation. And this indicates very clearly that you have no solid foundation in this branch of knowledge. Therefore, you need to work very hard on improving your understanding in this field before you can really see clearly how groundless and untenable your position is. Does this make any sense to you?
lightgigantic: “…lol - you already have with your "neo - mono/polytheism anti-lateral chronologicalism" - you can be quite mythological too in the pursuit of your logic…...".
Re: This ‘lol’ can’t get you off the hook! And you should know that your mythological Holy Scripture is the MOTHER of all myths around here. Correct?
lightgigantic: “…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 determining god's potencies…….”.
Re: Are you calling determining whether your God is real or illusory ‘illusions of greatness’? If that is so, then you are the one who is really enslaved by his illusions and more than ready to sell cheap his inborn mind in order to keep them! Is this true?
lightgigantic: “…... You accuse them of concocting and attempt to qualified by the same agenda - make up your mind……”.
Re: Concocting what? They are not concocting anything. They are simply delusional and unable to be otherwise. Relying on them as a source of knowledge and truth, therefore, is your fault, not theirs. You are the one who chose to be a slave of their delusions. Don’t blame them. Blame yourself!
Last edited:
lightgigantic: “…... 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?……”.
Re: This is again a symptom of your lack of logical training and disciplines. How on earth can you be unable to distinguish between a formal definition and the ontological entity defined by that definition? Clearly, you need very badly to work on your logic. You agree; don’t you?
lightgigantic: “…...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)………”.
Re: You see? Sometimes, you don’t seem that oblivious to the rules! A position like your is logically untenable. So what can be done in such a situation? Well, one can see the light and embrace the truth. One, also, can resort to sophistry and playing around with words. This last option is usually chosen by the religious dogmatist and obviously by you throughout this discussion. So you are playing, here, the role of the untrained sophist! Correct?
lightgigantic: “…..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)…..”.
Re: Whether your God is ‘svarat’ or ‘sarva karana karanam’, the validity of His concept must be examined through the use of the principles and the rules of logic. By these principles and rules, His concept is found to be contradictory and invalid. Therefore, He could not exist, except in your imagination and the hyperactive imagination of your saintly authority.
lightgigantic: “…..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……”.
Re: You still don’t like ‘street bums’. And you’re ready to break your bones to prove it! What a shame! You could have been taught to navigate safely around the slums. What a loss!
lightgigantic: “…..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 the 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.”.
Re: But again you still don’t love ‘street bums’. You obviously are not much of a POLITICIAN. What a shame! They could have elected you a PRESIDENT; couldn’t they? What a loss!
AAF said:
lightgigantic: “…... You accuse them of concocting and attempt to qualified by the same agenda - make up your mind……”.
Re: Concocting what? They are not concocting anything. They are simply delusional and unable to be otherwise. Relying on them as a source of knowledge and truth, therefore, is your fault, not theirs. You are the one who chose to be a slave of their delusions. Don’t blame them. Blame yourself!
The point, that you are failing to address, is that you accuse the established authorities of monotheism of concoction, but to accept your proposals we also have to accept your concoctions - so what is the difference?
The exact nature of your concoction is that you say the monotheistic god has a material cause - that's why I say you are out of your league with this thread - you want to establish that the monotheistic god is a conscoction but you don't accept god even theoretically therefore you think you are at liberty to concost whatever you like in the name of theoretical definitions (In science this is called bad practice)
- your real issue is that you contend the authority of scripture, but instead of addressing that you dress up your ideas in the guise of pseudo-logic
All you can say is basically "The whole notion of god is made up - it is your imagination - therefore I just proved it because I said it was your imagination"
To which we can reply "Who cares for your opinions"
^yes, you can believe whatever the hell you want as long as you obey laws and pay taxes. I believe this universe is inside a racist, evil psychopath that by its structural nature helps assholes to invent fascist, fundamental religions to gain power and if not religion anything else it can produce, causing suffering and all forms of evil because it is a reflection of its nature. You never see fundamentalists even try to question whether their creator, god, textbook, belief system is actually good. Prove me wrong. That is a rhetorical question because for one you can't and second i don't care about your opinion either.
Last edited:
AAF said:
lightgigantic: “Nothing particularly against fruit vendors and garbage truck drivers - Just like a doctor is a doctor, a scientist is a scientist and a car mechanic 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 crookedness that determine how well it functions………”.
Re: No, the Caste System is religiously sanctioned only in the Hindu religion.
Then why do people who want their garbage taken away deal with garbage men and why do people who seek medical attention go to doctors? As it applies to this thread you are not grounded in the basics of theoretical knowledge to distinguish a qualified religious practioner, hence you think your opinions are just as credible as anyone elses
AAF said:
I never said that - there are many right ways and many wrong ways - but even the varieties of right and wrong ways can be perceived by general principles - for instance because you lack a foundation in theoretical knowledge your understanding on this subject is completely wrong
AAF said:
Is it reasonable and logical for a prisioner to expect a 16 course meal for breakfast?
AAF said:
Not really because you didn't address my challenge how you can enter into the understanding of ANYTHING without a basis of theoretical knowledge
AAF said:
- still no good reason for us to accept that scripture is a concoctionon the basis of your concoctions. All you do is tag things like "correct?" "do you agree?" to your concoctions - your pleading doesn't add any credibility to your claimsAAF said:
Once again you didn't address why your own existence is a suitable prototype for determining the parameters of god's
lightgigantic: “Reason and logic? You're using a polytheistic paradigm to undermine a monotheistic conclusion………….”.
Re: What are you talking about? Reason & logic are a ‘polytheistic paradigm’! It can’t get more nonsensical than that. Polytheism simply denotes a religious system with an explicit hierarchy of gods. So why are you using it as a kind of INSULT? It doesn’t make sense, except perhaps to you.
lightgigantic: “…Once again you are revealing your lack of a theoretical foundation of knowledge - just as there is more to a doctor than having a stethoscope draped over their neck there is more to a religious practitioner than their dress - I was actually indicating how opposite extremes (in this case fanatical religious zealots and fanatic atheists) share the same general principles in their ideologies……..”.
Re: Obviously, calling the followers of rival religions ‘zealots’ would not make you less zealot. And this applies squarely to your comment about the ‘narrow-minded’ evangelists. And so, your lack of true sportsmanship and real knowledge is the main problem here, Signor ‘Religious Practitioner’!
lightgigantic: “…You can't even locate the topic properly so no wonder you having trouble drawing the distinctions……”.
Re: So you want me to call all your religious rivals ZEALOTS and call you Mr. NICE! If not, then I would miss your point? Is this what you want me to draw?
lightgigantic: “…Then why do you insist on using a polytheistic notion that god is a product of time? That is not a standard definition……….”.
Re: Now I see it! The root of your horrible misconception is that you wrongly think polytheists (i.e. pagans) describe their gods as the product of TIME. But they don’t; and you are wrong. So be generous and open-minded and accept PAGANS as the first cousins of the saintly PERSONS of your ancient holy books!
lightgigantic: “…Except that you contend the definition that time is a product of god on the authority of your own whim……..”.
Re: According to the authority of logic and reason, your imaginary God cannot exist in the absence of TIME. I know that you know this. But obviously as a monotheist, you are no great lover of the TRUTH. Am I correct, Self-declared Practitioner?
- Status