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

[Sarkus]

First of all, to restate, 'Nothing can both exist and not exist simultaneously in the same manner (first rule of logic).

Unfortunately you are only stating something that holds within our universe - as this is, afterall, all that can be known to us.
We can know nothing about what is outside the universe - and what "logic" (or seeming illogic) holds - if indeed any does.
Your logic throughout appears sound - but only from the point of view of being internal to this universe - i.e. the assumption that the logic within = the logic without.

Therefore nothing can create itself (as it would have needed to exist before it existed in order to create itself).

So everything logically could not create itself from nothing.

Nothing could have existed eternally but this is provably false since something exists now.

Further, the concepts of "nothing" and "something" are also only applicable to the contents of this universe - not the universe itself - as we know nothing of the logic that supports its existence - only of the logic internal to its existence.
The concepts of "something" and "nothing" can thus not be applied externally to that for which we have absolute lack of knowledge.

An eternal self existing entity of sufficient power, skill and knowledge could at some point create everything else in the universe including time.

Couple of points here:

1. You say "everything else in the universe" implying that the creator is also within? A typo or an accidental ambiguity for which I have picked up the unintended meaning?

2. Your concepts of power, skill, knowledge etc are again only applicable to the contents of the universe - not to that which is not internal.


You are basically limiting the conceptualisation to the logic of the internal universe - which is surely restrictive.

But then, I guess, what else can we do?

 

[Gordon]

Unfortunately you are only stating something that holds within our universe - as this is, afterall, all that can be known to us.
We can know nothing about what is outside the universe - and what "logic" (or seeming illogic) holds - if indeed any does.
Your logic throughout appears sound - but only from the point of view of being internal to this universe - i.e. the assumption that the logic within = the logic without.

Further, the concepts of "nothing" and "something" are also only applicable to the contents of this universe - not the universe itself - as we know nothing of the logic that supports its existence - only of the logic internal to its existence.
The concepts of "something" and "nothing" can thus not be applied externally to that for which we have absolute lack of knowledge.

Couple of points here:

1. You say "everything else in the universe" implying that the creator is also within? A typo or an accidental ambiguity for which I have picked up the unintended meaning?

2. Your concepts of power, skill, knowledge etc are again only applicable to the contents of the universe - not to that which is not internal.


You are basically limiting the conceptualisation to the logic of the internal universe - which is surely restrictive.

But then, I guess, what else can we do?

1.Perhaps 'in the universe' should have been in brackets, but in does depend on what you mean by 'universe'. If it is the physical energy/matter/time part only, then clearly the entity ('God') would be 'outside' of it but if you mean everything that exists in whatever form then 'God' would be inside (in a mathematical and logical sense not in a physical location sense although even that could be implied with an omnipresent God!). In the latter case the universe would be eternal but not necessarily the physical energy/matter/time part of it!

 

[Gordon]

Unfortunately you are only stating something that holds within our universe - as this is, afterall, all that can be known to us.
We can know nothing about what is outside the universe - and what "logic" (or seeming illogic) holds - if indeed any does.
Your logic throughout appears sound - but only from the point of view of being internal to this universe - i.e. the assumption that the logic within = the logic without.

Further, the concepts of "nothing" and "something" are also only applicable to the contents of this universe - not the universe itself - as we know nothing of the logic that supports its existence - only of the logic internal to its existence.
The concepts of "something" and "nothing" can thus not be applied externally to that for which we have absolute lack of knowledge.

Couple of points here:

1. You say "everything else in the universe" implying that the creator is also within? A typo or an accidental ambiguity for which I have picked up the unintended meaning?

2. Your concepts of power, skill, knowledge etc are again only applicable to the contents of the universe - not to that which is not internal.


You are basically limiting the conceptualisation to the logic of the internal universe - which is surely restrictive.

But then, I guess, what else can we do?

Sorry sent last message too soon - triumph of fingers over brain!

In regard to 'within' and 'without' the universe (the physical energy/matter/ time one) surely the naturalistic atheist would contend that there is nothing else and therefore no 'without' and thus the logic must be universal too.

But in any event, I do not necessarily agree that the logic can fail 'outside'. Please consider the following:

'nothing', 'something' and 'everything' are words for which we have invented definitions. They are therefore absolute, just as a triangle absolutely has three sides. This is not because of any discovered properties or any logical inference but because that is the (totally arbitrary) definition we have created for it. There can be nowhere inside or outside of the the universe where a triangle does not have three sides because of this (arbitrary but absolute) definition (They may of course have different secondary or inferred properties but they must have three sides or they are not triangles!)

As stated before, even 'God' cannnot break logic, because if this is once allowed, everything simply falls apart and all deduction, reasoning, thought and conclusion fails. This would be a form of philosophical anarchy which is not even capable of contemplation because contemplation requires some logical rules!

So similar to a 'triangle', 'everything', 'something' and 'nothing' are not modified by any spatial (or even spiritual) considerations. For example: If I remove everything, nothing will remain must always logically be true. If something is there, there cannot be nothing there must also always be logically true, etc.

regards,


Gordon.

 

[Sarkus]

In regard to 'within' and 'without' the universe (the physical energy/matter/ time one) surely the naturalistic atheist would contend that there is nothing else and therefore no 'without' and thus the logic must be universal too.

I would contend that nothing can be known about the outside - even whether there is one or not.

As stated before, even 'God' cannnot break logic, because if this is once allowed, everything simply falls apart and all deduction, reasoning, thought and conclusion fails. This would be a form of philosophical anarchy which is not even capable of contemplation because contemplation requires some logical rules!

That is why I don't think any contemplation about that which is not within our universe is irrelevant - as we can NOT know ANYTHING about it - whether there is an outside - whether logic holds - whether it is blue or green - whether anything at all.
Inside our universe we have what we understand as logic to keep everything in place.

So similar to a 'triangle', 'everything', 'something' and 'nothing' are not modified by any spatial (or even spiritual) considerations. For example: If I remove everything, nothing will remain must always logically be true. If something is there, there cannot be nothing there must also always be logically true, etc.

This is where I see the flaw - as while "everything", "nothing" and "something" may well be internally consistent and logical (e.g. remove "everything" and you are left with "nothing") you are not stating anything about what "everything" actually is - or what "nothing" actually is.
Can you define any of those words adequately without using one of the others (or synonym of)?

My point is that our understanding of those words (and any word - and any "thing") is limited to the internal universe. And thus our use of those words is thus limited - and speculation of the external is irrelevant.

But - as far as utilising the internal logic to contemplate the external - I think your logic is sound.

 

[AAF]

Now you are approaching the vedic concept of god - god doesn't create the material cosmos because it is an eternal aspect of his potency - the material cosmos does however go through periods of annhilation and re-establishment - similar to the way things get devastated in winter and rejuvenated in the spring through an endless series of cycles

That is not an absolute annihilation.
For annihilation to be truly an annihilation in the absolute sense,
physical things must be reduced to absolute NOTHING.

 

[lightgigantic]

That is not an absolute annihilation.
For annihilation to be truly an annihilation in the absolute sense,
physical things must be reduced to absolute NOTHING.

Once again you are confirming the vedic viewpoint - there is no absolute annhilation - the lowest common denomination of material existence is classified as the mahat tattva and it is eternal

 

[AAF]

god exists because he has answered so many people's prayers.
it just annoys that he does bad things to me so often, like making that movie desync and stuff. but yeah... it's probably like with the guy Job... God and satan made a bet... who Job would choose... and satan can do as many bad things against him as he wants...
god doesn't really exist, but he still kind of exists...

Hello c7ityi_:

But where are those people whose prayers have not been answered?
http://www.csicop.org/sb/9709/baker.html
I like your last statement!

 

[AAF]

Once again you are confirming the vedic viewpoint - there is no absolute annhilation - the lowest common denomination of material existence is classified as the mahat tattva and it is eternal

The Vedas contain almost every contradiction under the sun!
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/H_0134.htm
And so you could find in it something like that, along with its exact opposite!
There is no surprise there.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “…Matter has form - the question is does transcendental things have form too - you cannot answer this question however because it requires a foundation of theoretical knowledge, which you seem to think you are qualified to override……..”.

Re: If this supposed theoretical knowledge of yours tags a ‘vigraha’ to those theological things, then you should at once hand it over to the garbage man in your area!


lightgigantic: “…I am just trying to help you formulate a logical argument - at the moment you are accepting transcendental objects as the binary opposite of matter in a primitive fashion - so you speculate that transcendental things are completely the opposite of material things - the question is that they merely be different as opposed to opposite - in other words the examination of material phenomena is no qualification for elucidating the nature of the transcendental…….”.

Re: Thanks, priest! That is very kind of you! But if your supposed theoretical knowledge tags, in a primitive fashion (so to speak), a ‘vigraha’ to those theological things, then you should without hesitation hand it over to the garbage collector in your area!
http://vedabase.net/v/vigraha


lightgigantic: “…omg - another wikipedia "authority"……”.

Re: What is wrong with it? It’s obviously more reliable and more up-to-date than your ancient books.


lightgigantic: “…Perfect in understanding god? Why not? To the degree that they are surrendered to the processes of understanding god - its not that everyone is equally qualified in understanding god because not everyone is equally surrendered - in fact there are many so called intelligent persons who are adverse to the notion of god - again , because you lack a foundation of theoretical knowledge you cannot see the variety of the category and tend to just blindly write off the whole thing, much like a gullible person who blindly accepts everything…….”.

Re: I would prefer to have you branded as ‘gullible’, even though you’re quite intelligent, because of your blind trust in the authority of your ancient and somewhat naive gurus!


lightgigantic: “…Well do you believe in the established authorities of any branch of knowledge or do you think that its impossible for anyone to be more intelligent than yourself? For instance is it irrational to accept the authorities of astronomy in understanding astronomy (particularly if one doesn't know the first thing about astronomy) - if not why is that any authority in the name of religion must immediately be disbanded (unless of course you have a complete absence of theoretical knowledge and can only blindly discriminate on the matter)”.

Re: Every branch of knowledge worthy of its name must have a primary and accessible standard of reference to validate its claims. And so for astronomy and natural sciences in general, the final authority is not the practitioners or the experts or the textbooks, but the ever-open book of nature. But your religious field has no such open reference and its claims of knowledge and wisdom rely solely on the bogus assumption of special truths accessible only to very privileged priesthood. It’s, therefore, a bogus and worthless authority.

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: "...But it is also establihed that god is the cause of humans as opposed to humans being the cause of god - unless of course we reject the authority of scripture ... which brings us back to the epsitemological basis for this thread ...".

Re: That THREAD is killing you! Isn't it?
You just can't reconcile yourself to the FACT that
God is a man-made myth and He is not out there.
One more thing!
The 'authority of scripture' & the 'epsitemological basis'
can't go together. Either you are with The 'authority of scripture'.
Or you are with the 'epsitemological basis'.
You can't have both.
l*g*, you really need to work hard on the basics!


lightgigantic: "...Not really - under monotheism the idea is that there is god and there is ignorance of god. Just like there are two phenomena perceivable with the sun - light and darkness. What you are trying to establish is that darkness is the cause of light - like for instance if it was a particularly dark dark night the sun might appear less light at sunrise...".

Re: What about Natural Catastrophes (earthquakes, tsunamis, plagues,...etc.)?
Is their EVIL a kind of 'ignorance of god', or something else?


lightgigantic: "...Better to define god according to scripture as opposed to empiricism - otherwise there is no premise for a logical debate in an unestablished epistemology...".

Re: You really need to work hard on sorting them out!
Logic is in harmony with 'empiricism' far more
than with 'scriptures'.
You have to choose.
O.K.?

 

[AAF]

Concluding Remarks


Now that the arbitrary target of ’12,000 VIEWERS’ for this THREAD is very close, it’s the time to look back and make the following remarks:

[1] It’s logically untenable to suppose the creation of time. Nothing can exist in the absence of time. And it’s impossible for God to be eternal without eternity.

[2] I’m surprised by this observation. The idea of God lies exactly at the very center of the human thought. There is absolutely nothing irrelevant within the context of discussing this theological notion. And everything is relevant.

[3] This also surprises me as well. In stark contrast to other fields and subjects, when it comes to the notion of God, everybody is an expert. You may not agree with them, but you cannot improve their reasoning and argument for it the slightest bit, when you look at this notion from their perspective. And so everybody is an expert in this regard.

Well, I think we have now to let this THREAD wind its way through that very long QUEUE. That is, of course, after mopping up few things left over in the wake of ‘lightgigantic’!

Finally, I would like to thank all the participants in this lively DEBATE for their very interesting contributions and informing discussion. And on their behalf, we thank the moderators of this free FORUM for their hospitality and their true commitment to free exchange of ideas and FREEDOM of speech.

So long nice THREAD; that is after mopping up few things left over by ‘lightgigantic’!

 

[Prince_James]

AAF:

Bravo on the excellent thread. I'm sure we'll have much to discuss in other ones.

 

[lightgigantic]

The Vedas contain almost every contradiction under the sun!
http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/H_0134.htm
And so you could find in it something like that, along with its exact opposite!
There is no surprise there.

There's more to understanding the vedas than opening up a link page

BG 2.45
The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

and


2.46

All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them.

 

[lightgigantic]

AAF

lightgigantic: "...But it is also establihed that god is the cause of humans as opposed to humans being the cause of god - unless of course we reject the authority of scripture ... which brings us back to the epsitemological basis for this thread ...".

Re: That THREAD is killing you! Isn't it?
You just can't reconcile yourself to the FACT that
God is a man-made myth and He is not out there.
One more thing!
The 'authority of scripture' & the 'epsitemological basis'
can't go together. Either you are with The 'authority of scripture'.
Or you are with the 'epsitemological basis'.
You can't have both.
l*g*, you really need to work hard on the basics!

For some reason you remind me of a dastardly villain in a cape who appears from time to time to deliver over confident speeches in attempt to demoralise the audience

lightgigantic: "...Not really - under monotheism the idea is that there is god and there is ignorance of god. Just like there are two phenomena perceivable with the sun - light and darkness. What you are trying to establish is that darkness is the cause of light - like for instance if it was a particularly dark dark night the sun might appear less light at sunrise...".

Re: What about Natural Catastrophes (earthquakes, tsunamis, plagues,...etc.)?
Is their EVIL a kind of 'ignorance of god', or something else?

I wasn't aware that there were evil earthquakes - does that mean there are good earth quakes as well?

lightgigantic: "...Better to define god according to scripture as opposed to empiricism - otherwise there is no premise for a logical debate in an unestablished epistemology...".

Re: You really need to work hard on sorting them out!
Logic is in harmony with 'empiricism' far more
than with 'scriptures'.
You have to choose.
O.K.?

[/QUOTE]

Maybe according to your twisted views - but then you don't understand scriptures so from your vantage point we can understand th epremises for your statement

 

[lightgigantic]

Concluding Remarks


Now that the arbitrary target of ’12,000 VIEWERS’ for this THREAD is very close, it’s the time to look back and make the following remarks:

Certainly is a remarkable feat of ignorance on your behalf - the determination to sit through 12 000 posts is certainly super human - you must have started with the strong conviction that you would ignore any evidence that ran contrary to your established initial ideas - congratulations - not everyone would be assured such a success

[1] It’s logically untenable to suppose the creation of time. Nothing can exist in the absence of time. And it’s impossible for God to be eternal without eternity.

its also difficult for fish living on the ocean floor to conceive of anything but water for an environment

[

B][2][/B] I’m surprised by this observation. The idea of God lies exactly at the very center of the human thought. There is absolutely nothing irrelevant within the context of discussing this theological notion. And everything is relevant.

Thats a fact - god will continue to be famous long after you are dead - what to speak of when this thread vanishes into obscurity

[3] This also surprises me as well. In stark contrast to other fields and subjects, when it comes to the notion of God, everybody is an expert. You may not agree with them, but you cannot improve their reasoning and argument for it the slightest bit, when you look at this notion from their perspective. And so everybody is an expert in this regard.

And no doubt you are the greatest expert of all since you can defy the established defintions of god even foundin scripture

Well, I think we have now to let this THREAD wind its way through that very long QUEUE. That is, of course, after mopping up few things left over in the wake of ‘lightgigantic’!

Finally, I would like to thank all the participants in this lively DEBATE for their very interesting contributions and informing discussion. And on their behalf, we thank the moderators of this free FORUM for their hospitality and their true commitment to free exchange of ideas and FREEDOM of speech

So long nice THREAD; that is after mopping up few things left over by ‘lightgigantic’!

lol -

No one is possessed of more false confidence than a bad poet -martial

 

[AAF]

lightgigantic: “Certainly is a remarkable feat of ignorance on your behalf - the determination to sit through 12 000 posts is certainly super human - you must have started with the strong conviction that you would ignore any evidence that ran contrary to your established initial ideas - congratulations - not everyone would be assured such a success…….”.

Re: What is this supposed to be? A parting SHOT, or what? That target is certainly a great milestone; and took more than FIVE months to even come close to it. In the old days, reaching such a milestone was relatively easy. Ask old-timers about it. It is not quite clear what procedural change in counting has taken place since then, but it appears multiple logging from the same machine is no longer included. I could have been more tougher on you for trying to spoil the party; but I just can’t forget your important role and help in coming very close to this unbelievably gigantic number by modern Internet STANDARDS. And I know you're posting this only to keep the DEBATE going. I forgive you!


lightgigantic: “…its also difficult for fish living on the ocean floor to conceive of anything but water for an environment……”.

Re: The same old false analogy! How can you suppose this easy and this reckless that no fish in the ocean is clever enough to realize that the sun is not residing in its lovely and very NICE Ocean? More importantly, you cannot base a theological idea as important as the notion of God on mere ignorance. That notion, first and above everything else, must be logically consistent and free of contradictions in order for that hypothetical entity to exist at all. And so your FISH analogy is false out and out and all the way down. Is this a good parting SHOT, or what?


lightgigantic: “…Thats a fact - god will continue to be famous long after you are dead - what to speak of when this thread vanishes into obscurity…….”.

Re: Well, change is the only constant. And I’m not, by all means, that worried about it, because I know that you, ‘lightgigantic’, will also lie right there lifeless and bony as one BIG deceived ‘sucker’, so to speak, and no deity in the Universe can get you out of it! As for this THREAD, if it sinks into ‘oblivion’, it will certainly take your ‘mammoth’ contribution for the sake of your ‘God’ along with it all the way down to the ocean floor. How do you feel now about that? Is this a nice parting SHOT, or what? Don’t worry about it. It will pop up and spring back to life, whenever someone feeds ‘God & contradiction’ to some search INGINE. It’s alive!


lightgigantic: “…And no doubt you are the greatest expert of all since you can defy the established defintions of god even foundin scripture……”.

Re: I didn’t really say that; but since you mentioned it, I, certainly, have more expertise in this field than the ancient gurus of your sacred ‘Vedas’! I read the 'Bible'; and they didn’t! Is this a ‘mammoth’ parting SHOT or what?


lightgigantic: “…lol - No one is possessed of more false confidence than a bad poet –martial”.

Re: ‘LOL’ @ you and your blind trust in the authority of ancient gurus! This is a very lovely parting SHOT! No hard feeling, ‘l*g*’! You’re a nice, good-hearted, and kind man; I’m not kidding; that is really my testimony...

 

[AAF]

Mopping up SOMETHING Left over by ‘lightgigantic’!



lightgigantic: “For some reason you remind me of a dastardly villain in a cape who appears from time to time to deliver over confident speeches in attempt to demoralize the audience……..”.

Re: Well, the reason is obvious. You’ve taken it straight from the KRISHNA movie! Your mental PICTURE, however, would have been highly adored by ME, if it were painted as that of a BOUNTY hunter in the old ‘wild wild’ WEST, grim-faced and darkened by the Mexican SUN, but still you can rely on HIM for having the JOB done (http://www.gunslinger.com/west.html)! Now, do YOU remind me of whom or what? Bearded, turbaned, baby-faced FELLA, who is wearing THICK glasses and forever poring over few ancient BOOKS and cluttering his PC with FILTERS to toss out and keep naked ‘VILLAINS’ away! What do you think of that; correct; right?


lightgigantic: “…I wasn't aware that there were evil earthquakes - does that mean there are good earth quakes as well?……..”.

Re: It’s the evil done to people by EARTHQUAKES. Natural DISASTERS have no WILL of their own; hence their Creator (if any) must be held responsible for their evil. If you unleash your NASTY dog to bite people on the street, you will be the guilty party, not your dog. This is very clear and obvious; and hopeless and pointless to argue otherwise.


lightgigantic: “…Maybe according to your twisted views - but then”.

Re: My views are not 'twisted'; your views are. Since, as people know, logic is much more in line with SCIENCE and its philosophy than with RELIGION and its interpretations. In fact, the very fundamental-core belief in religion (i.e. the notion of GOD) is very illogical and irrational and can never be made coherent and consistent in any way.

 

[Prince_James]

In this movie, might I be a Jedi? I think that'd be pretty fantastic, don't you think?

 

[AAF]

In this movie, might I be a Jedi? I think that'd be pretty fantastic, don't you think?

If you meant this 'Jedi' http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/thejediorder/, then it could be the case.
But I really prefer this ONE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_V_of_Scotland)

 

[swivel]

Your realization that space is infinite does not solve the problem
ot Infinite Past. Because the two types of infinity in both cases
are very different. Infinity of space is always potential infinity,
not an actual one. The same is true in the case of infinite
future. Infinity is also potential in the case of starting from the present
and regressing indefinitely towards the past.

In all cases of potential infinity, there is no paradox and no contradiction.
To the contrary, potential infinity here guarantees logical consistency
and the eradication of contradictions and paradoxes.

The situation is quite different in the case of actual infinity.
Take, for example, the problem of Creation, where infinity
of past time is actual. Here, God, simply, spent an infinite period of time,
and then about 6000 years or so ago, He decided to create every thing!
In this case, we cannot start from 6000 years ago, and then regress towards
the past indefinitely, as we can do in the case of ordinary chains of causality.
Because, no matter how you look at it, God already spent an infinite time
before creating the world. And hence the infinity of the past here is actual.
And so, how did God do it?
How did infinite past come to pass?
No matter what your answer to those questions is, it always contains a fatal
contradiction that implies the absolute impossibility of Creation.
And that is the theists' BIG PROBLEM.

Is that clear?

This is the foundation of my disproof of god, which many members here have had a tough time with. I think you do an even better job at describing the fundamental problem of an infinite past than I do, and just wanted to quote this for Truth.