Ha ha!
God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
Yup. Movement is time. Change is time. As I watch my fingers dance across my keyboard, I am seeing time just as easily as I see volume.
I have a question, though... how do you "see" weight? Don't you need something to measure weight, and then look at that measurement? Why, that is just like looking at a clock, or a graph with 't' as an axis, or my fingers moving.
Time is not the magical thing that you seem to think it is. It isn't weird, or metaphysical, or any nonsense about "space-time" fabrics. All time denotes is that a system is changing. We need to be able to discuss these changes, so we log what "order" things happen in. Like the posts in this thread, for instance. The "older" posts are up top, the current post is at the bottom, and the space for "future" potential posts is understood to be below that. The pages of posts have a similar testament to time.
Remember, all time is, is a word we use to describe change. And that is something that we see constantly.
Voulme can be seen in something concrete. You look at something and you have an idea of how much it might weitgh. Time is completely abstract.
I guess all our concepts are quite abstract. Maybe the universe is very abstract. Everything is very relative to the observer. Since we cannot separate ourselves from ourselves, it is very hard to have an objective perception of the universe. But maybe that's all that there is. Maybe the universe doesn't exist without an observer. If we would all die at the same time, would the universe still exist? Maybe it would, but nothing could be measured or perceived. It is as thought nothing exists.
Maybe existance needs an observer in order to BE existance...
:m:
I guess all our concepts are quite abstract. Maybe the universe is very abstract. Everything is very relative to the observer. Since we cannot separate ourselves from ourselves, it is very hard to have an objective perception of the universe. But maybe that's all that there is. Maybe the universe doesn't exist without an observer. If we would all die at the same time, would the universe still exist? Maybe it would, but nothing could be measured or perceived. It is as thought nothing exists.
Maybe existance needs an observer in order to BE existance...
:m:
I once contradicted God and He corrected my free-will by lovingly threatening me with eternal damnation and by testing my faith, of which He already knew the quality and the outcome of, and allowing me to suffer so as to flex me freedom by submitting to His rules.
Then He told me He could do anything except create Himself or eradicate evil, which He had no hand in creating since He was absolute goodness and told me to blindly believe in a Book some asshole wrote while He dictated it into his ear, even though He could have written and published infinite text in half the time, time which He is beyond.
Then He told me that He already knew what was going to happen but He wanted to see what I would do, which I found to be quit self-contradicting, and that most of His followers will be retards with the intellectual consistency of Jell-O pudding.
I dared to ask him how he could exist, since existence was a phenomenon of temporal and spatial appearance, by not existing; him being timeless and “outside” space in a dimension He was within and yet beyond, all at once.
He told me to shut the fuck up and to watch it before He sent me to Hell in that loving, compassionate, forgiving way of His.
I begged for forgiveness, promising that if He would protect mew from my fear of dying I would sacrifice my mind to His belief and I would follow the correct epistemology of His ontology, even though the belief in His transcending glory was geographical and historically confined.
Thank god, God is not self-contradicting, like we, pitiful humans are.
We’re just lucky there are those few enlightened individuals and books to tell us exactly what the unknowable absolute is.
We already have the answer…all that’s left is finding a formula to adhere to it.
Thanks sciforums.
Then He told me He could do anything except create Himself or eradicate evil, which He had no hand in creating since He was absolute goodness and told me to blindly believe in a Book some asshole wrote while He dictated it into his ear, even though He could have written and published infinite text in half the time, time which He is beyond.
Then He told me that He already knew what was going to happen but He wanted to see what I would do, which I found to be quit self-contradicting, and that most of His followers will be retards with the intellectual consistency of Jell-O pudding.
I dared to ask him how he could exist, since existence was a phenomenon of temporal and spatial appearance, by not existing; him being timeless and “outside” space in a dimension He was within and yet beyond, all at once.
He told me to shut the fuck up and to watch it before He sent me to Hell in that loving, compassionate, forgiving way of His.
I begged for forgiveness, promising that if He would protect mew from my fear of dying I would sacrifice my mind to His belief and I would follow the correct epistemology of His ontology, even though the belief in His transcending glory was geographical and historically confined.
Thank god, God is not self-contradicting, like we, pitiful humans are.
We’re just lucky there are those few enlightened individuals and books to tell us exactly what the unknowable absolute is.
We already have the answer…all that’s left is finding a formula to adhere to it.
Thanks sciforums.
Sorry, M*W.… … … … … … … ... samcdkey confused me:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58392&page=3
As I pointed earlier, there are so many kinds of atheism. You have to be specific, therefore, about what type of atheism you meant in your question; otherwise, no answer is possible.
Is my brand of atheism compatible with the 'infinity of time'? Sure, it is; just review the Main Thread! Quite simply, if time is infinite, then no god is needed.
You've stated above that 'time is a matter of perception'. From this, I conclude that you have given up your last-summer position, where everything is a matter of perception. Accordingly, your worldview, now, is very close to the worldview of Immanuel Kant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant
Kant's Theory of Perception:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Kant.27s_Theory_of_Perception
The Antinomies of Pure Reason:
http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/philosophy/Personnel/susan/Antinomies.html
And hence, all the major objections to Kant's philosophy apply to your philosophy as well. In particular, there is no logical basis whatsoever for labeling time as 'perception' and labeling matter as 'real entity'. These TWO essences go together; and if one essence is real, the other essence must be real; and vice versa. You might think that you can touch, see, smell, and hear matter, but you can't do the same with time. But that is an illusion. You're able to do all that with matter, simply because your body is composed of matter. But none of that can tell you what the essence of matter really is. To be logically consistent, therefore, you have to treat the essences of time & matter & space equally and on the same footing. Take note of Kant's antinomies! Because of his false distinction between the essence of matter and the essence of time, every thesis, in his antinomies, is false; and every antithesis is true.
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.
what if he just always existed, and your puny mind cannot comprehend "always",
peace.
timmbuktwo
Registered Senior Member
WOW , now that's something else. It's not concrete? The sun , earth rotating , what part of this is concept?
Time is math , and that is concrete.
Last edited by a moderator:
No - there are only two "brand"s - the "I do not have a belief in God" brand, and the "I believe there is no God" brand. The WEAK and STRONG brands respectively.
Your other thoughts might stem from these atheisms but they are not atheism - they are merely thoughts about X, Y or Z.
These thoughts (X, Y, Z) are as much a "brand" of atheism as my views on who will win a football match.
Hi Sarkus:
The terms 'WEAK & STRONG', in this context, are as vague and non-specific as the term 'ATHEISM' itself. And so they clarify nothing and add nothing.
Very briefly, atheism is the NEGATION of theism; i.e. atheism = -(theism).
That is a very BIG thing to deal with it collectively or to define it precisely.
Consider this! In logic, when you say (A), you always mean some definitive thing.But when you negate (A), you get -(A). This minus (A) refers to everything else in the Universe, except that well-defined entity called (A). And so -(A) is really BIG.
Atheism is not as big in its SCOPE as -(A), because it applies to religion ONLY; but it still has a LARGER domain and WIDER range than that of theism. For example, atheism must include some believers in the eternal Universe, some believers in the absolute beginning of the Big Bang, the materialists, the nihilists, the communists, some idealists, some humanists, some secularists, some libertines, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, the founder of the CNN, Jesse Ventura, swivel, and me.
what if he just always existed, and your puny mind cannot comprehend "always",
peace.
If your mind is really PUNY, then you must lose any right of asserting
at the whim that 'God does exist'; correct?
Ok - I see where you are coming from. Differing views of the same absence of mountain, I suppose.
I just wouldn't call them differing "brands of atheism".
The people are atheists - who also happen to have some additional ideology.
Anyhoo - I do understand your view, and am happy to concede / accept it - it's not worth a debate over what is probably just semantics.
For the trillionth time:
Weak atheism, is an atheist who does not make an absolute statement "god does not exist"
Strong atheism, is completely the opposite the strong atheist is the individual who asserts a positive affirmation "god does not exist"
Most atheists I know are of the weak atheist genre, the strong atheist genre falls into a trap, a trap that theist themselves are constantly refuting with us. Thus a theist claims a god exists, therefore the theist by making the claim, is acknowledging that he/she knows what god is and that it exists.
On the other hand, the strong atheist trap therefore is, that he knows what god is, and he knows that it does not exist! thus he needs to provide the empirical evidence that such an entity is knowable, and that it does not exist.
The weak atheist, is the person who rejects theistic dogma, religious rhetoric, on the acknowledgment that there's insufficient evidence presented to assert a positive statement "god exists" though weak atheists when presented with overwhelming contradictions, and speculations of theist's assertions of their god, gods, goblins, devils, demons, heaven & hell plus scripture rhetoric, simply dismisses all the above as wildly imaginative primitive imagination, when concrete evidence is short or nil, zilch, zero, nada, then we conclude that no such being exist or need exist, however we won't put ourselves in the same position as strong atheist, by making the positive claim "god does not exist" do to our lack of knowledge of what really is this entity or whether it exists or not!
AAF,
"Atheism: "Time in infinite."
Theism: "Time is infinite."
Therefore, atheism is right so there is no god!"
Huuuumm..... there is something wrong with this picture....
:crazy:
"Atheism: "Time in infinite."
Theism: "Time is infinite."
Therefore, atheism is right so there is no god!"
Huuuumm..... there is something wrong with this picture....
:crazy:
Ok - I see where you are coming from. Differing views of the same absence of mountain, I suppose.
I just wouldn't call them differing "brands of atheism".
The people are atheists - who also happen to have some additional ideology.
Anyhoo - I do understand your view, and am happy to concede / accept it - it's not worth a debate over what is probably just semantics.
I agree this topic is somewhat not very controversial.
After all, everybody knows what atheism is all about.
Nonetheless, it's very important to dispel one widespread misconception surrounding this subject. Almost without exception, religious folks think it's relatively easy to become an atheist. You just say 'there is no god'; and you're an atheist! But it never happens that way. Atheism is always the final conclusion of a very long series of reasoning and philosophical considerations of all sorts. In other words, every atheist must have a philosophy. It's this type of philosophy that defines this type of atheism, not the other way around. And since the number of potential philosophies that can lead to atheism is endless, the number of different types of atheism is endless as well. Accordingly, the previous question of TruthSeeker of 'how atheism deals with the notion of infinite time' is misconceived, because it is the same as asking how does every philosophy of atheism deal with the notion of infinite time? To answer such a question, one must examine every conceivable philosophy to see whether or not it leads to atheism; and how it deals with the concept of infinite time. That answer would take volumes, I guess! TruthSeeker, therefore, is not a practical man, by any means; right?
Hello godless;
If those 'weak atheists' of yours can't be sure that 'God does not exist', then why should they be classified as atheists in the first place? The English language is very rich; and it must have some word for labeling this kind of undecided people.
However, I think you mean, in this context, the politics of atheism. It's, here, that people who think 'God does not exist' can be divided into 'strong' & 'weak'; i.e. the militant & the passive.
And so, the 'strong atheist' is the one who dislikes very much his fellow theists, refuses to put his hand on the Bible in court, and forces his wife and children to follow him. That is on one hand.
On the other hand, the 'weak atheist' is the one who can afford to sit inside a church, relax inside a mosque, and take a nap inside a synagogue, all in one day!
In this sense of the term, the communists, in their heyday, must have been 'strong atheists', because they refused to co-exist with their fellow theists under any conceivable circumstances.
By contrast, the Darwinians must be classified as 'weak atheists', because they tend to leave religion alone as long as the theists refrain from interfering with the science of biology.
Last edited:
Because they do not have the belief that god exists. That is all it takes to be an atheist.
It is NOT a matter of indecision - it is merely a matter of not having the belief that god exists.AAF said:
Nope - I don't think he was saying this.AAF said:
I know plenty of "strong" atheists who could do everything you assign to the "passive" - they can sit in a church and be comfortable, knowing that it means diddly-squat to them but that it means a lot to other people.
Whether an atheist - weak or strong - has an issue with other peoples' belief is irrelevant.
So, on reflection, AAF, you really do need to revise your understanding.
It has diddly to do with strength of "anti-theism / anti-religion" - and merely reflects either a belief in non-existence (strong atheism) or just a lack of belief in existence (weak atheism).
- Status