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

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “…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)…….”.

Re: Damn right! I don’t intend to create mythologies. I intend to destroy them! And time is above all gods. Okay?


lightgigantic: “….. except the ability to emanate the potency of time (according to your speculative definitions and directly opposed to authoritative definitions found in scripture ...)….”.

Re: The ability to emanate the ‘potency of time’ is definitely according to your speculations and used by you to re-interpret the supposed authoritative definitions found in your mythological scripture. To ‘emanate the potency of time’! It doesn’t even sound flowery and poetical, let alone consistent and logical. And this is one more symptom of your lack of ‘theological knowledge’ and logical training. True? Yes? No? The verb ‘emanate’ itself can never ever have any meaning or make any sense in the absence of time. And that is why your argument for the existence of God is so illogical.


lightgigantic: “…... 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 ????……”.

Re: This is again a symptom of your lack of logical training and disciplines. How on earth you’re 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. Do you disagree on this one? I bet you do!


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

Re: You know? Sometimes, you don’t appear that ignorant of the rules! A position like yours is logically helpless. So what can be done in such a situation? Well, one can see the light and accept the truth. One, also, can resort to sophistry and playing around with words. This last tactic is generally chosen by religious dogmatists, and obviously by you in the current discussion. So you are playing a sophist here! Right?


lightgigantic: “…... 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……..”.

Re: Once again, are you ignorant of the rules or just playing sophist? Every fallacy in the book has been committed by you in this setting. The above is called the fallacy of placing your argument upon the prestige of authority, which is in this case, the authority given by you to your own ancient mythological books! So you should get your argument into shape; and be more subtle. In other words, become a trained and sophisticated sophist!


lightgigantic: “…... 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…….”.

Re: One more time, you’re relying on the authority and the testimony of the supposed saintly persons of your scripture. And that is a fallacy. And it’s useless. Stop using it! God cannot exist, because every possible definition of Him is outright contradictory. And this is a fact. Hence, do you want to be an ignoramus? Do you want to be a sophist? Or do you want to be a wise person who accepts the truth and avoids a lot of sophistry and waste of time? The choice is yours. Make it now!

 

[Prince_James]

AAF:

If you do not mind, I shall respond to your original post. Some very original and thought-provoking stuff you have here presented, but I think you are flawed in part.

Mind you: I speak here purely from a philosophical approach to theology such as yourself. As somewhat of an atheistic pantheist, I do not adhere to religion, nor view any of the claims of any such belief system as epistemologically or practically valid.

"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. "

Creatorhood is indeed held to be a part of God by many theologians, but questions as to its validity is worth testing without necessarily throwing out the fullest extent of Godhood. But we'll get back to that in a bit...That not withstanding, it does not follow that God must be able to create himself in order to be an absolute creation, for God must only need be able to satisfy the condition "capable of creating all things which are capable of creating" to be an absolute creator, for creation implies creatability. God, as an absolute, could not be created and thus God would be freed of any such obligation to create himself. But anyway, to directly comment on some things:

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

Let us switch this from "nothingness is greater than him", to "nothing is greater than him". Does not this switch illustrate why nothingness cannot be construed as greater than anything? For to speak of nothing is to, as noted, speak of nothing at all. Moreover, if God is eternal - which he is presumed to be - then to speak of nothingness preceding God is to speak of him not being eternal.

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

This seems to become more and more an offshoot of the classical "Can God create a rock not even he can lift?" In that you are, in essence, pitting God against his own attributes. To say that God is a creator in regards to himself, can be said to mean that because God is an absolute, it is impossible for him to be otherwise than absolute, and thus his negation would be absurd. Self-justified, more than "self-created", for creation implies the non-absolute. Moreover, to speak of him creating himself out of nothing implies that God is conditional, which supposes against his essence, and thus you are actually asking God to create a God-like being, not God. Also, you are presenting something fundementally illogical into your argument: That nothingness can exist. Nothing can be "brought out of nothingness", for it implies that nothingness has some sort of ontological existence which would negate its existence as nothingness.

As to a God outside of time:

You are correct. The notion of God existing apart from time is absurd. It is also contrary to claims made by some theologians that God can act, move, et cetera, all of which necessitate an existence in time.

But to go back as to creatorhood and God, I would claim that it is far more reasonable to demonstrate that God is not a creator by virtue of the fact that, were God a creator, it would invalidate his omnipresence and omnipotence, by introducing something entirely new that would invalidate the ontion of infinity that omnipresence is based on (which can allow nothing new), and omnipotence which is rooted in omnipresence (if God = everything he can do everything and does, in fact, paritcipate in all actions).

In essence, it is a flawed viewpoint to take God as a creator, but this does not imply that God, or something which fullfills certain basic ideas about God, I.E. infinity, eternity, et cetera, cannot exist. But as to whether such a thing does, unless you wish for me to present proof here or elsewhere, I shall not go into.

 

[Bowser]

I am assuming that all things are created within and by the same source. In absolute physical terms, The Universe (God) has created (People) within itself the ability to experience itself (Awareness and life.) In essence, the Universe is observing itself through you.

In that sense, God is Creator, Omnipresence and Omnipotence.

 

[iam]

^maybe it didn't create anything. Thats like saying I created the bacteria in my intestines. It also does not mean this so called IF creator is even really good. If we are a reflection of this 'god' then he/it is obviously very imperfect and very evil in nature.

 

[lightgigantic]

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.

But thats the problem - you are not using reason and logic - you are defying the established definitions of "monotheism" (regardless of whether you accept them or not) and borrow from the established definitions of polytheism in order to debunk it - if you examine your original thread this is not the right forum for a person who wants to redifine the established norms of monotheism - if that is in fact your desire you would be better off rewriting the thread to something about undermining the established authority of monotheism rather than trying to push through your concocted redefinitions of monotheism as a vehicle for your "logic"

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’!

The point is that a zealot lacks a philosophical approach, regardless whether they are religious or atheistic zealots - in your case your lack of philosophy is indicated by your absence of a foundation in theoretical knowledge by which one can adequately use the word "monotheism"

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?

Actually I am just saying that if you want to examine the logical premise of monotheism it behooves you not to redefine the established definition midway through to suit your ideology

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!

We'll let the pagans or polytheists speak for themselves - if you want to talk about monotheism however why do you insist on borrowing from other philosophies outside of monotheism to prove that monotheism is a contradiction?

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?

Whats the point if I say i am a practioner or not? You lack the foundation of theoretical knowledge to dtermine whether I am lying or not ... Just as a fanatic blindly believes everything you blindly disbelieve everything - so despite your animosity towards narrow minded evangelists you have more in common with them than you think because you have no philosophical platform due to a complete absence of theoretical knowledge

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: “…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)…….”.
Re: Damn right! I don’t intend to create mythologies. I intend to destroy them! And time is above all gods. Okay?

But thats the point - by your last statement you are establishing your own brand of religious perception - at the least it is merely an opinion, at the worst another branch of theology (even if only atheist like yourself are among the "devout") - this is why I say you are out of your leauge with this thread because you insist in redefining the established object of debate for the purposes of debate - you would be better off thinking about working on a different thread that aims at undermining the established authority of scripture [/QUOTE]

lightgigantic: “….. except the ability to emanate the potency of time (according to your speculative definitions and directly opposed to authoritative definitions found in scripture ...)….”.
Re: The ability to emanate the ‘potency of time’ is definitely according to your speculations and used by you to re-interpret the supposed authoritative definitions found in your mythological scripture. To ‘emanate the potency of time’! It doesn’t even sound flowery and poetical, let alone consistent and logical. And this is one more symptom of your lack of ‘theological knowledge’ and logical training. True? Yes? No? The verb ‘emanate’ itself can never ever have any meaning or make any sense in the absence of time. And that is why your argument for the existence of God is so illogical.

Again you use your own existence as a yardstick for determining the parameters of god, and therefore have no qualification for entering into what is dilineated in scripture, hence you are left with a complete absence of theoretical knowledge which gives you no credibility for your "understanding"- there are stacks of clear scriptural quotes that declare time as subservient to god and that god's existence is beyond what we laterally experience as time

lightgigantic: “…... 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 ????……”.
Re: This is again a symptom of your lack of logical training and disciplines. How on earth you’re 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. Do you disagree on this one? I bet you do!

You judge god's ontology by your own ontology - is that reasonable and logical given even the theoretical nature of god's existence?

lightgigantic: “…... Well you don't even accept this definition as a model to work out of ... what can be done?…….”.
Re: You know? Sometimes, you don’t appear that ignorant of the rules! A position like yours is logically helpless. So what can be done in such a situation? Well, one can see the light and accept the truth. One, also, can resort to sophistry and playing around with words. This last tactic is generally chosen by religious dogmatists, and obviously by you in the current discussion. So you are playing a sophist here! Right?

Sophist? You are the one using your own ontology as the means to determine god's -lol

lightgigantic: “…... 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……..”.
Re: Once again, are you ignorant of the rules or just playing sophist? Every fallacy in the book has been committed by you in this setting. The above is called the fallacy of placing your argument upon the prestige of authority, which is in this case, the authority given by you to your own ancient mythological books! So you should get your argument into shape; and be more subtle. In other words, become a trained and sophisticated sophist!

Well on what basis should we accept your authority over scripture? What do you know of your own cause except your father and mother - why do apply the same general principle to god, especially since you lack even a primary theoretical foundation of knowledge - you are just like an illiterate villager speculating about astronomy. - Where is the possibility of debate without established definitions? If you want to borrow from polytheism to prove that monotheism is a contradiction why should we foolishly go along with it?

lightgigantic: “…... 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…….”.
Re: One more time, you’re relying on the authority and the testimony of the supposed saintly persons of your scripture. And that is a fallacy. And it’s useless. Stop using it! God cannot exist, because every possible definition of Him is outright contradictory. And this is a fact. Hence, do you want to be an ignoramus? Do you want to be a sophist? Or do you want to be a wise person who accepts the truth and avoids a lot of sophistry and waste of time? The choice is yours. Make it now!

Well if you want to debate about astronomy don't you rely on the authority of astronomers and astronomy books? Or is the reasonable and logical path to throw all of it out the window and begin by saying "You know I had a good look at tyhe stars last night from my kitchen window and I think all those eggheads in university are wrong"

 

[lightgigantic]

^maybe it didn't create anything. Thats like saying I created the bacteria in my intestines. It also does not mean this so called IF creator is even really good. If we are a reflection of this 'god' then he/it is obviously very imperfect and very evil in nature.

Why? If the prisioners in jail are bad does that mean the king is bad? You created the bactreia in your intestines? Did you create your intestines?

 

[AAF]

Why? If the prisioners in jail are bad does that mean the king is bad?...................

But it does not mean the 'king' is good!

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “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 mathematics - it all comes back to a foundation of theoretical knowledge….”.

Re: ‘Full of bliss’; what a hyperactive imagination! How do know your Deity is full of it? And yet, you still talk endlessly about theoretical knowledge! It is getting here closer to the ad hominem fallacy. But it’s your fault. You’ve used it repeatedly during this discussion; haven’t you? The question was ‘can you describe the form of your God’? But so far we’ve seen nothing of your 'tons' of descriptions. Forget about ‘eternal’; it is not a form. ‘Full of knowledge & bliss’ is not a form either. Your theoretical knowledge, therefore, is misguided and baseless.


lightgigantic: “…The problem is that you have no foundation of theoretical knowledge and can not even begin to point 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……”.

Re: The problem is your lack of disciplines of logic. And so your theoretical knowledge is little more than a hot air. It is, once again, getting closer and closer to the ad hominem fallacy thanks to you! But there is no other choice. You must be made to drink from your own well; otherwise you might get used to it! Is this fair and square?


lightgigantic: “…lol - but god is not accepted as material form - which is why he is never advocated as material except by unqualified persons…”.

Re: ‘LOL’ on your argument! God is not matter! Therefore, why should He have a form? Your philosophical & theological knowledge is far less than adequate. It’s, again, too close to the ad hominem fallacy thanks to you. But it is not unfair to have you drink your own ‘SEVEN UP’!


lightgigantic: “…lol - well maybe you could begin by establishing how form can emanate from something that has no form, since you want to champion the cause of logic……”.

Re: ‘LOL’ on your faulty argument once again! So it’s me now who must establish it, not you? What a logic! If you break it, you own it! And so you have to drink your own ‘COCA COLA’! It’s certainly your fault.


lightgigantic: “…Plato advocated a transcendental realm -lol - it formed a basis for plato’s 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”.

Re: ‘LOL’ on your theoretical knowledge! You’ve forgotten the various meanings of the term ‘TRANSCENDENTAL’ in various fields given previously in this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendent
It’s illegal to switch back and forth among them as it suits you. The subject matter here is theology; and only the definition of the term in theology, not in Plato's ideals, is discussed. So stick to it! And what about this ‘imperfect’ Plato? You are not thinking human beings can really be perfect; aren’t you? If you believe they can, then say good-bye to your good sense! Do you believe the ‘saintly persons’ of your ancient mythological scripture were perfect? If this is what you believe in, then say good-bye to your good judgement! And this is not your ‘COCA COLA’! This is the TRUTH.

 

[AAF]

................Creatorhood is indeed held to be a part of God by many theologians, but questions as to its validity is worth testing without necessarily throwing out the fullest extent of Godhood. But we'll get back to that in a bit...That not withstanding, it does not follow that God must be able to create himself in order to be an absolute creation, for God must only need be able to satisfy the condition "capable of creating all things which are capable of creating" to be an absolute creator, for creation implies creatability. God, as an absolute, could not be created and thus God would be freed of any such obligation to create himself...................

Hi Prince_James:

Thank you for your comments.
You've raised many & very good points.
It will take a while to go through them in detail.

 

[AAF]

I am assuming that all things are created within and by the same source. In absolute physical terms, The Universe (God) has created (People) within itself the ability to experience itself (Awareness and life.) In essence, the Universe is observing itself through you.
In that sense, God is Creator, Omnipresence and Omnipotence.

Hi Bowser:

I agree that the UNIVERSE (matter + space + time + causality) is the only source of all real possibilities, including people. But the UNIVERSE (matter + space + time + causality) itself cannot be created, because the assumption to the contrary leads necessarily to very big and irresolvable contradictions. Therefore, the UNIVERSE must be eternal. However, none of the above considerations can make the UNIVERSE a GOD in any theological sense of the term. It just has no character, no personality, no free will, no mind, no feeling, no love, no hate, no motive, no sense of right & wrong, and desire to punish or reward people. And so the UNIVERSE is not a GOD. And I love it!

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “…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 ……..”.

Re: The president is a free man! He can choose to come over; or he can choose not to come over. What is wrong with that? Moreover, he can be only as great as those who voted for him, but no greater. Can your caste-humbug-filled mind see this very simple fact?


lightgigantic: “…You're the one who places limitations on god by accepting a bogus definition of your own concoction………”.

Re: No, you are the one who claims repeatedly that the human mind is too limited to investigate the theology of God. That is what your 'bogus' saints taught you. And that is what you are saying.


lightgigantic: “…What? and blindly accept your nonsense? Humility is only a virtue when exhibited before qualifed persons”.

Re: Nonsense! Powerful persons can force you to be humble and submissive before them. And therefore, your humility, in this case, is a sham and morally nothing, unless you show it to those who are less powerful than you are. Am I telling the truth here?

 

[iam]

Yes, but we do and thats the question, ain't it? We can form malicious premeditated intent and we can be prejudicial. We have a sense of right and wrong because it is real, we know deep inside we need to protect the integrity of, the source of our consciousness. We do feel, we do think and we do and can have motives for good or ill and exact them out. And whether the universe can feel or not doesn't change the fact of what living beings have to go through here which is horrendous and harsh for many.

 

[Bowser]

<i>I am assuming that all things are created within and by the same source. In absolute physical terms, The Universe (God) has created (People) within itself the ability to experience itself (Awareness and life.) In essence, the Universe is observing itself through you.

In that sense, God is Creator, Omnipresence and Omnipotence.</i>

^maybe it didn't create anything. Thats like saying I created the bacteria in my intestines. It also does not mean this so called IF creator is even really good. If we are a reflection of this 'god' then he/it is obviously very imperfect and very evil in nature.

If it is the source of your existence, then it stands that you were created by that source...whatever that source might be. As for the bacteria in your bowls, I am certain they serve a purpose, even though you are not endowed with the ability to create your own variety. And your ability to discriminate between good and evil is contained within the same system. You can cut the pie into slices, but it's still pie.

 

[Bowser]

Hi Bowser:

However, none of the above considerations can make the UNIVERSE a GOD in any theological sense of the term. It just has no character, no personality, no free will, no mind, no feeling, no love, no hate, no motive, no sense of right & wrong, and desire to punish or reward people. And so the UNIVERSE is not a GOD. And I love it!

All of those attributes do exist whithin the Universe. You simply choose to ignore the fact that you are an expression of the whole. If you exist, then certainly so do all of the above. I assert that the parts cannot exist independent of the whole.

 

[iam]

You are assuming too much. There is a duality here which does not automatically mean that it is inseparable or that the source is only one. We are evolving with where and what we find ourselves in and against.

 

[Bowser]

You are assuming too much. There is a duality here which does not automatically mean that it is inseparable or that the source is only one. We are evolving with where and what we find ourselves in and against.

There is nothing to assume. There is no duality. If we are children of this reality and we <i>are evolving with where and what we find ourselves in,</i> then what has the Universe created within itself?

 

[Bowser]

I think I might have found Cris' <i>immortality.</i>

 

[iam]

Yes there is a duality and it doesn't mean there is only one source and we are evolving in a clusterfuk in a collision of forces. That does not automatically mean it was planned or premeditated or perfect.

 

[Bowser]

Yes there is a duality and it doesn't mean there is only one source and we are evolving in a clusterfuk in a collision of forces. That does not automatically mean it was planned or premeditated or perfect.

I see much order in your collision of forces and presumption of chaos. As James has explained, energy is never destroyed but is simply converted into something new. As time moves forward, so does evolution--it doesn't move backwards or sideways.