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

[grover]

I can conceive of it.
Many people can.
Why do you think it impossible?

Really? You can conceive of the infinite? Something without beginning or end? You are capable of conceving of the universe going on forever and ever without limit? It's completely beyond human capacity to think of their being no limits, no beginnings or ends. Don't waste your time denying it.

Why is it impossible?
Many people can.

So you can conceive of nothing? You can think of the universe as having an edge and beyond that there is nothing? Not empty space - nothing. It's impossible to conceive of it and anyone that says they can are totally out of touch.

 

[Sarkus]

Really? You can conceive of the infinite? Something without beginning or end? You are capable of conceving of the universe going on forever and ever without limit? It's completely beyond human capacity to think of their being no limits, no beginnings or ends. Don't waste your time denying it.

So you can conceive of nothing? You can think of the universe as having an edge and beyond that there is nothing? Not empty space - nothing. It's impossible to conceive of it and anyone that says they can are totally out of touch.

LOL!
I find your argumentative technique fascinating: it borders on the fanatical and displays both immaturity and delusion, not to mention a splash of arrogance.

You have not answered my questions as to WHY you think it is impossible - all you have done is stressed that you think it is impossible.
No explanation.
This is what I would expect from a fanatic with no argument to support their claims. "It is as I say... er... because it is!"

Pathetic, grover.

Now please - answer the question: why do YOU think it is impossible.
I can tell from your statement that YOU obviously can not conceive of it - but why should it be impossible for others? Are you arrogant enough to think that you are capable of conceiving of everything that others can - that just because you are incapable of it that others must be?

If you are unable to support your claims with anything other than incredulity then I am afraid to say that you are arguing with nothing but a classical logical fallacy - and as such your unsupported claims will rightfully be ignored.

 

[grover]

Now please - answer the question: why do YOU think it is impossible.
I can tell from your statement that YOU obviously can not conceive of it - but why should it be impossible for others? Are you arrogant enough to think that you are capable of conceiving of everything that others can - that just because you are incapable of it that others must be?

If you are unable to support your claims with anything other than incredulity then I am afraid to say that you are arguing with nothing but a classical logical fallacy - and as such your unsupported claims will rightfully be ignored.

What's funny is your inability to see the irony in your post. You are asking me to prove a negative (which you atheists are constantly pointing out is impossible).
Are you arrogant enough to think just because you don't know God others don't? And what does your argument against God always boil down to? INCREDULITY. Thats why everyone that argues in favor of it invariably has to hear people blather on about leprechauns and flying spaghetti monsters.
-----------------------------------
And which is it Sarkus? Does the universe go an and on and on forever and ever and ever withou end? Because I can't conceive of something without end. But maybe thats just me - you know with my finite mind and all.

Or does the universe have an end and outside of that is just nothing. Because I can't conceive of that either. But maybe thats just my mind and its habit of conceiving of something when it tries to think of nothing.

 

[Sarkus]

What's funny is your inability to see the irony in your post. You are asking me to prove a negative (which you atheists are constantly pointing out is impossible).

Please indicate where I am asking you to "prove a negative" - I am merely asking for why you think it impossible that anyone can conceive of the infinite.

Are you arrogant enough to think just because you don't know God others don't?

I merely ask that someone who makes a claim supports that claim with evidence.

And what does your argument against God always boil down to? INCREDULITY.

My argument is NEVER one of incredulity (I suggest you look up the logical fallacy of arguing from incredulity... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) - it is a lack of evidence that results in my non-belief. I am incredulous because of the lack of evidence - which is very different.
Please provide the evidence for your claim that I argue from incredulity!

Thats why everyone that argues in favor of it invariably has to hear people blather on about leprechauns and flying spaghetti monsters.

LOL! You're demonstrating an alarming lack of comprehension of the arguments made against belief.
None of it is a case of "I do not believe because the conclusion is preposterous".
All of it is a case of "I do not believe because there is no evidence to support that belief".

And which is it Sarkus?
Does the universe go an and on and on forever and ever and ever withou end?
Or does the universe have an end and outside of that is just nothing.

Amazingly - it could be either.

Because I can't conceive of something without end.
Because I can't conceive of that either.

Ah - finally your first worthwhile statements. Your entire argument stems from your own personal inability to conceive of either alternative.
But are you really that arrogant as to assume that because you are incapable, so is everyone else?

But maybe thats just me - you know with my finite mind and all.
But maybe thats just my mind and its habit of conceiving of something when it tries to think of nothing.

I care not why you find it incapable of conceiving of infinity or of nothing. It is irrelevant.
But please do not use your own shortcomings in this matter as evidence that everyone is incapable of it.

 

[grover]

Please indicate where I am asking you to "prove a negative" - I am merely asking for why you think it impossible that anyone can conceive of the infinite.

My claim is that people can not conceive of the infinite. If you are asking me to prove that you are asking me to prove a negative.

My argument is NEVER one of incredulity (I suggest you look up the logical fallacy of arguing from incredulity... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) - it is a lack of evidence that results in my non-belief. I am incredulous because of the lack of evidence - which is very different.
Please provide the evidence for your claim that I argue from incredulity!

I too am incredulous due to a lack of evidence and abscence of direct experience.

LOL! You're demonstrating an alarming lack of comprehension of the arguments made against belief.
None of it is a case of "I do not believe because the conclusion is preposterous".
All of it is a case of "I do not believe because there is no evidence to support that belief".

You don't believe because of abscence of evidence AND abscence of direct experience of a subjective phenomenon. Me too.

Amazingly - it could be either.

Right, but can you really conceive of nothing? IS that really something you are capable of conceptualizing. It seems impossible that there be nothing outside the universe. It also is impossible for me to conceptualize the universe going on forever (although to my limited mind that seems reasonable although still nonetheless I don't think I can conceptualize infinity in an meaningful way. The reified linguistic symbol "infinity" has nothing in common with actual limitlessness.

Ah - finally your first worthwhile statements. Your entire argument stems from your own personal inability to conceive of either alternative.
But are you really that arrogant as to assume that because you are incapable, so is everyone else?

Actually Sarkus I completely see your point. This actually demonstrates what I've been talking aobut with God the entire time. A directly experienced subjective state such as "seeing God" or being capable of "concevinig of the infinite" is not demonstrable to other people and just because you can't do it doesn't mean others can't.

I care not why you find it incapable of conceiving of infinity or of nothing. It is irrelevant.
But please do not use your own shortcomings in this matter as evidence that everyone is incapable of it.

Okay, you're right I have a shortcoming - I can't conceptualize nothing or the infinite. You don't have direct experience of God. Don't use your own shortcoming in this matter as evidence that everyone else is incapable of it.

(note: interestingly, one of the jewish words for God is Ain Sof - which means nothing without end. I've also seen similar buddhist descriptions of reality as infinite void. Just kind of interesting how these religous conceptualizations seem also to revlove around nothing and infinity.)

 

[Sarkus]

My claim is that people can not conceive of the infinite. If you are asking me to prove that you are asking me to prove a negative.

I am not asking for proof - I was merely asking WHY you believe others can not conceptualise these things. I never mentioned the word proof.

I too am incredulous due to a lack of evidence and abscence of direct experience.

Your argument was one purely of "This is impossible because I can't do it" - a logical fallacy.
One needs neither evidence nor direct experience to be able to conceptualise something.

Please conceptualise a pink elephant? Or an elephant with six legs?

You don't believe because of abscence of evidence AND abscence of direct experience of a subjective phenomenon. Me too.

You're talking drivel and cross-purpose here.
You are equating your comment that "it is impossible for the human mind to conceive of the universe having no beginning. It's impossible for the human mind to conceive of the universe having a beginning, what was before it?" with my lack of a positive belief in God?

Utterly ridiculous.

On one side we have YOU making claims of OTHER PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALISE THINGS purely on the grounds that you can't.
On the other is my lack of a personal positive belief in God through a lack of evidence.

Where's the similarity?

Right, but can you really conceive of nothing?

Yes.

IS that really something you are capable of conceptualizing.

Yes.

It seems impossible that there be nothing outside the universe.

Why?

It also is impossible for me to conceptualize the universe going on forever (although to my limited mind that seems reasonable although still nonetheless I don't think I can conceptualize infinity in an meaningful way.

This is your personal opinion. This is hardly a basis for stating that it is impossible for any / all persons to also find it impossible - which was your claim.

The reified linguistic symbol "infinity" has nothing in common with actual limitlessness.

Explain.

Actually Sarkus I completely see your point.
...
Okay, you're right I have a shortcoming - I can't conceptualize nothing or the infinite. You don't have direct experience of God. Don't use your own shortcoming in this matter as evidence that everyone else is incapable of it.

Sheesh.
Why do you insist, in nearly every damn post you make, of putting words into my mouth that I have just never said!
Are you utterly incapable of understanding what others say to you?
Or is changing what they say the only way you have of finding a means to continue the argument?

Please highlight where I have ever said that everyone else is incapable of having a "direct experience of God"?

Please. I'm curious as to where you have dug this apparent claim of mine from.

And you STILL fail to see the logical disimilarity between our two positions that you indicate:
- YOU made a claim, and have a belief, without evidence (i.e. that it is impossible to conceptualise various things etc)
- I make no claims and have no belief BECAUSE of the lack of evidence.

Until you realise this simple difference between these types of positions you will most likely continue to come up with the unsubstantiated claims that you are prone to make.

 

[grover]

I am not asking for proof - I was merely asking WHY you believe others can not conceptualise these things. I never mentioned the word proof.

I can't conceptualize those things. And neither can other people I've talked to. your the first person I've heard claim that they can.

Your argument was one purely of "This is impossible because I can't do it" - a logical fallacy.
One needs neither evidence nor direct experience to be able to conceptualise something.

Well, I can't do it. Neither can other people I've talked to. There is no actual evidence either way, there are only subjective claims, which I've stated in numerous posts can't actually be proven.

Please conceptualise a pink elephant? Or an elephant with six legs?

Okay. Plese conceptualize nothing. No, not blackness, nothing. No, not something clear, nothing. Serioulsy, think about the edge of the universe and then beyond that there is nothing, not space, not blackness, nothing. Can't you see how fucked up that is?

You're talking drivel and cross-purpose here.
You are equating your comment that "it is impossible for the human mind to conceive of the universe having no beginning. It's impossible for the human mind to conceive of the universe having a beginning, what was before it?" with my lack of a positive belief in God?

No, I have a lack of positive belief that you can conceptualize these things due to abscence of evidence.

Utterly ridiculous.

On one side we have YOU making claims of OTHER PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO CONCEPTUALISE THINGS purely on the grounds that you can't.
On the other is my lack of a personal positive belief in God through a lack of evidence.

Where's the similarity?

The similarity is that people claim to have a direct experience of knowledge of God that one must experience first hand to know, there is no explication they can give to show that they have in fact had this subjective experience. Just as you claim to have a subjective experience of being able to conceptualize both nothing and infinity. There is however no way you could prove to someone else you can actually do this and there is no evidence you can actually do this. Thats the similarity.

This is your personal opinion. This is hardly a basis for stating that it is impossible for any / all persons to also find it impossible - which was your claim.

Yup, you're right. Personla opinions dont really mean a whole lot when it comes to subjective phenomena.

Explain.

There's a difference between the finger pointing and the thing pointed at.

Sheesh.
Why do you insist, in nearly every damn post you make, of putting words into my mouth that I have just never said!
Are you utterly incapable of understanding what others say to you?

Come on now sarkarino, don't be like that. Other peoples words are often open to interpretation. Or do you write with such precision that no one could ever possibly misinterpret your position?

Or is changing what they say the only way you have of finding a means to continue the argument?

I sincerely hope I don't do this.

Please highlight where I have ever said that everyone else is incapable of having a "direct experience of God"?

Well that's what you seemed to be getting at when you said: "Isn't calling something "indescribable" actually describing it?

Isn't calling something "incognisible" (not sure of your spelling?) showing that you know it enough to know it is unknowable?

Aren't both of these paradoxes? And are they not merely means of hiding the possibility that God does not exist? Removing it from the possibility of scrutiny lest you be shown to be wrong?"

Isn't this just you saying that the subjective experience they had of direct knowledge beyond words is just bullshit? Like you keep telling me, just because you are incapable of a certain type of knowledge doesn't mean other people are.

And you STILL fail to see the logical disimilarity between our two positions that you indicate:
- YOU made a claim, and have a belief, without evidence (i.e. that it is impossible to conceptualise various things etc)

No you dont' believe in God because there is no evidence just like I dont believe you are capable of certain conceptualisations because there is no evidence.

- I make no claims and have no belief BECAUSE of the lack of evidence.

Yup, me too.

Until you realise this simple difference between these types of positions you will most likely continue to come up with the unsubstantiated claims that you are prone to make.

I don't think there's a difference.

 

[Sarkus]

I can't conceptualize those things. And neither can other people I've talked to. your the first person I've heard claim that they can.

Lucky me.

Okay. Plese conceptualize nothing. No, not blackness, nothing. No, not something clear, nothing. Serioulsy, think about the edge of the universe and then beyond that there is nothing, not space, not blackness, nothing. Can't you see how fucked up that is?

Seriously, no I can't see how f'd up that is.

No, I have a lack of positive belief that you can conceptualize these things due to abscence of evidence.

But you were claiming that it is impossible - and doing so without evidence.
This would be akin to me claiming that God is impossible - which I have never done.

As you have now clarified - you are merely agnostic on the matter.

Come on now sarkarino, don't be like that. Other peoples words are often open to interpretation. Or do you write with such precision that no one could ever possibly misinterpret your position?

I try to write with sufficient precision to avoid misinterpretation.
However, misinterpreting is one thing - but blatantly putting words into my mouth that I have never said is something entirely.

I sincerely hope I don't do this.

Then please don't put words in people's mouths. If you're unclear of how to interpret the arguments presented by someone else then either ask for clarification or state your assumption of interpretation.

Well that's what you seemed to be getting at when you said: "Isn't calling something "indescribable" actually describing it?

Isn't calling something "incognisible" (not sure of your spelling?) showing that you know it enough to know it is unknowable?

Aren't both of these paradoxes? And are they not merely means of hiding the possibility that God does not exist? Removing it from the possibility of scrutiny lest you be shown to be wrong?"

Isn't this just you saying that the subjective experience they had of direct knowledge beyond words is just bullshit? Like you keep telling me, just because you are incapable of a certain type of knowledge doesn't mean other people are.

No - it was actually just me being flippant with the apparent paradox of describing something as indescribable - for in doing so one actually describes the thing they are saying is indescribable - etc.

It most certainly was no where near the interpretation you seemed keen to cling to.

No you dont' believe in God because there is no evidence just like I dont believe you are capable of certain conceptualisations because there is no evidence.

Good - nor should you.
But this is a far cry from your positive claim that "it is impossible to do so".

If I was to say "God is impossible" then your argument would flow logically.
But I don't - nor have I knowingly ever done so.

Your claim was that to conceptualise such things as nothingness is impossible.
This is a positive claim - made without evidence or supporting argument other than personal incredulity.

Now do you understand where the arguments differ logically?

 

[grover]

Now do you understand where the arguments differ logically?

Yes. But, I still don't believe the infinite can be conceptualized by a finite intellect. Nor do I understand how one can conceptulaize nothing since the instant one conceptualizes anything they have conceptualized something, which as we all know is not nothing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

If I was to say "God is impossible" then your argument would flow logically.
But I don't - nor have I knowingly ever done so.

From what can be understood from your arguments, God may as well be impossible. Maybe I misunderstand, so my questions are these.
Why isn't God impossible, from your perspective?
Can you think of a scenario in which God could actually be possible?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Why isn't God impossible, from your perspective?

Some definitions of God (e.g. the first cause) are beyond testing - and are unfalsifiable.
Yet there is no logical reason, with current knowledge, to claim that these certain definitions are impossible.

Can you think of a scenario in which God could actually be possible?

Yes.
If God was purely defined as "first cause" - with no other characteristics or properties assigned to it - then this is of course a possibility.
It is also a possibility that is dependent upon the assumption that the Universe was caused.

I hope this answers your questions to your satisfaction?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I´m with grover on this one, no human being can conceive the infinite. We are attached to finite things. Everything that is born have an end, as we know it.
Can you think of a beginning of the Universe? Or can you think an end?
The answer is an obvious no.

If the "Big Bang" was the beggining, then what originated the "Big Bang"? and What was before it? Billions and trillions of years before the Big Bang, what was out there?
Nothing? Right, and billions and trillions of years before that? Nothing? And trillions and billions of years before that?

For me, it is even possible that what we are doing, has already been done, by people exactly like us, because nothing is impossible in this infinite realm.

To say that you can conceive the infinite, it is only the arrogancy of your finite and skeptic mind.

 

[Oli]

I´m with grover on this one, no human being can conceive the infinite.

No one? You judge what others can or cannot do? While admitting that you personally have limitations?

If the "Big Bang" was the beggining, then what originated the "Big Bang"? and What was before it? Billions and trillions of years before the Big Bang, what was out there?
Nothing? Right, and billions and trillions of years before that? Nothing? And trillions and billions of years before that?

There was, by definition, no "billions and trillions of years" before the Big Bang.

To say that you can conceive the infinite, it is only the arrogancy of your finite and skeptic mind.

Let me quote something to you which you should already be familiar with:

Master and pupil are walking over the bridge and the master says "the fish are happy today"
The pupil says "But you are not a fish, you don't know what a fish feels"
And the master (correctly) replies, "but you are not me, you don't know what I know".
Whose arrogance?

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

No one? You judge what others can or cannot do? While admitting that you personally have limitations?

Ok, some humans may have experienced inmortality, but I do not know of anyone.

There was, by definition, no "billions and trillions of years" before the Big Bang.

Nothing before the Big Bang? Let me reply with a phrase I commonly hear from skeptics here. "THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT".
Besides, if before the Big Bang was a big black nothings, then that big black nothing produced the Big Bang? What a load of bs.
And even if there was a "big black nothing" before the Big Bang, then there were billions of years of a "big black nothing" and that is indeed something, so the Big Bang cannot possibly be a start.

Master and pupil are walking over the bridge and the master says "the fish are happy today"
The pupil says "But you are not a fish, you don't know what a fish feels"
And the master (correctly) replies, "but you are not me, you don't know what I know".
Whose arrogance?

Both, the pupil is assuming the master doesn´t know, by personal experience, it is the same as we assume everything for personal experience. Just because you were born and you are going to die, it doesn´t mean the Universe is the same as you Oli.

 

[Sarkus]

Ok, some humans may have experienced inmortality, but I do not know of anyone.

Why does one have to have experienced it? We are talking about conceiving of infinity / nothingness.
Your argument is thus logically fallacious.

 

[Oli]

Ok, some humans may have experienced inmortality, but I do not know of anyone.

Immortality? The subject was conceiving (or otherwise) infinity and nothing.

Nothing before the Big Bang? Let me reply with a phrase I commonly hear from skeptics here. "THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT".

Read what I wrote: BY DEFINITION. Anything "prior" to the Big Bang doesn't count, as it were.

Besides, if before the Big Bang was a big black nothings, then that big black nothing produced the Big Bang? What a load of bs.

In your opinion. There are ideas, none of them with much (if any) supporting evidence.

And even if there was a "big black nothing" before the Big Bang, then there were billions of years of a "big black nothing" and that is indeed something, so the Big Bang cannot possibly be a start.

Since, BY DEFINITION time started with the Big Bang then there can be BY DEFINITION no "billions of years" before it took place.

Both, the pupil is assuming the master doesn´t know, by personal experience,

And the master showed the pupil that making assumptions of others capabilities and knowledge based on your own capabilities and knowledge is, at best, fallacious and at worst arrogant.

it is the same as we assume everything for personal experience.

But some of us don't assume that everyone has the same limitations as we ourselves do...

Just because you were born and you are going to die, it doesn´t mean the Universe is the same as you Oli.

Did I say it was?
But if you're talking about the "birth and death of the universe" then the bIg Bang has very good supporting evidence and current data indicates that it's just going to keep expanding until everything dies, stars included.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

By definition Oli? there can not possibly be proof of the beggining or end of the Universe.
The best we have is the "Big Bang" theory, and the "everything leeds to chaos" things.
This is just human arrogancy, for not being able to conceive that the universe cannot possibly start or end. If everything leeds to chaos, then after the end there would be a big black nothing, then the big bang all over again, and then humans again.
So before the Big Bang, and you cannot tell me that there is a start, because before the start, there is something.

We are just living proof of the fact that we cannot possibly conceive the infinite quality of the Universe.

 

[Oli]

By definition Oli? there can not possibly be proof of the beggining or end of the Universe.
The best we have is the "Big Bang" theory, and the "everything leeds to chaos" things.

The Big Bang IS the definition and the proof...

This is just human arrogancy, for not being able to conceive that the universe cannot possibly start or end.

Cannot start and end? But science indicates both...

If everything leeds to chaos, then after the end there would be a big black nothing, then the big bang all over again, and then humans again.

No, if the universe keeps expanding then we can't have the Big Crunch to start another Big Bang. That's it, fini, game over.

So before the Big Bang, and you cannot tell me that there is a start, because before the start, there is something.

No evidence for it so far. Just ideas. Which takes it out of science and it the realms of metaphysics and speculation.

We are just living proof of the fact that we cannot possibly conceive the infinite quality of the Universe.

Infinite quality is one thing, and I tend to agree, but "infinity" and "nothing" in and of them themselves are not, I submit, inconceivable by humans.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Some definitions of God (e.g. the first cause) are beyond testing - and are unfalsifiable.
Yet there is no logical reason, with current knowledge, to claim that these certain definitions are impossible.

The definition of God is that he is a trancendental being, that is what we are talking about here, hence the thread title. You are proposing that there is a possibility of a material God, which is not a correct definition.
So, again; Why isn't God impossible, from your perspective?

Can you think of a scenario in which God could actually be possible?

Yes.
If God was purely defined as "first cause" - with no other characteristics or properties assigned to it - then this is of course a possibility.
It is also a possibility that is dependent upon the assumption that the Universe was caused.

You're evading the question.
We are discussing GOD, the same God which is defined in all religious scripture. He is defined as purely spiritual, not material.
Please answer the question in this context.

Jan.

 

[grover]

Cannot start and end? But science indicates both...

So your claiming that you are capable of imagining the universe ending and then there is just nothing? You can literally conceive of how there could be nothing? Or you are capable of conceiving of there being nothing and then ther universe appears?