If the universe ends the way current figures say then there won't be nothing, there'll be dead matter all over and no energy.
Yes to both.
God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
First - the thread title is "God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn't Exist.". Nowhere in the thread title, nor in the opening post, does it mention that God is a transcendental being.
That is YOUR interpretation.
The only claim of the opening post is that God is the Creator, and then possibly that some theists say that God "lives outside of time".
If you want to posit a specific variety of God - i.e. the transcendental flavour - then you should have said so when you raised the question.
Secondly, I am making no such proposition as to the possibility of a material God. Please state where I am?
Or are you another of these people who can only argue not only by raising fallacious strawmen but strawmen based on words never said?
Thirdly - you say that a material God "is not a correct definition".
Correct according to who? The opening post? Surely not, as the opening post makes no claim as to a definition of God outside of being the Creator.
Correct according to you?
Again - if you want to limit the focus of your questions then please state the necessary boundaries up front rather than attacking the response made in good faith.
I have no idea if God is or isn't possible, if by "God" you are referring to your variety of transcendental entities.
Until I reach the conclusion that they are impossible, then they will remain, as far as I am concerned, a possibility.
And to conclude they are impossible one would have to wade through all the logical inconsistencies of their properties.
This I have not done nor have any intention of doing.
So the default position is, to me they remain a possibility until I learn otherwise.
No I'm not - I answered the question. It is not my fault you failed utterly to define which God you were talking about.
Are we? The thread title doesn't say that. The opening post doesn't say that. And you have pointed to both of these as evidence of the God that we should refer to.
I already have.
My previous answer should contain sufficient information to be applied to any definition of God.
But in short, if there are no logical inconsistencies within the definition of the God - and all that that definition implies - and there is no evidence of non-existence - then it remains a possibility. This is true of all things - not just God.
I didn't say it was "nothing". Read back.
Certainly, check my thought processes... or alternatively go through the same courses I have until you too can understand what I'm talking about.
You claim you can conceptualize the infinite and nothing. Support it with some evidence.
Incorrect. Learn to read. I said I can visualise "nothing", I didn't say I could do "infinity" - although some of my maths and physics teachers said they could.
Certainly. Please tell me what you'll accept as evidence of my conceptual abilities and how you'll verify them? Can you prove to me that you can think at all?
Yeah, no shit. I didn't say you did say it was nothing. Read back.
You haven't provide any thought processes to demonstrate your stated claim of being able to conceptualize nothing and infinity. You took a course where they taught you to conceptualize nothing? Cool, no way. How big was the text book? Is that what you got your degree in? What kind of job can you get with that skill?
Hmmm?
Again I haven't claimed to be able to visualise infinity, just "nothing".
Again, tell me what you would accept as evidence of my thought processes and conceptualisation abilities.
Yes, it's called "degree-level physics" you become quite comfortable with many concepts that non-physicists aren't familiar with.
Unfortunately, yes way.
Actually there were quite a few books, mostly very thick.
Did I say I had a degree? Or is this another of your assumptions?
With physics and science? Engineer, physicist all sorts of things.
With experience and repeated need. Explain to me how you conceptualise a green elephant with hands.
To you at least, it seems.
So conceptualise something and then delete that...
No I didn't. I said that I took degree-level physics where the concept becomes familiar.
Have you tried Amazon.com? They have one or two physics text books.
Hello Grantywanty;
I assume you're referring above to the double-slit experiment, in which one photon of light appears to be in two places at once; right? And you're saying one of two things: one is very wacky; and one is not very wacky! (1) The Very Absurd One: the people of the Double Slit have committed logical contradiction; therefore, the contradictory God of the people of religion must exist! This kind of argument is absurd because it's like an argument by a defense attorney to set his client free only because the client of his colleague has been charged with the same kind of crime! (2) The Less Absurd One: the Double-Slit Folks have proven contradictory entities can exist; therefore, the contradictory God of the Religion Folks can exist as well. Is this your argument? Let's see! They can't possibly prove contradictory entities do exist, because it's absolutely impossible for contradictory entities to exist. Furthermore, any violation of the law of contradiction must turn around and bite them. Let's assume, for a moment, that the logical law of contradiction is not correct. Well, in this case, the experiment must be invalid, because experimental methods are based upon the validity of the law of contradiction; but the law of contradiction is not correct! Why should anyone, under these circumstances, believe in the uniqueness and the validity of their finding? There is no good reason for such a belief at all. Every thing goes; and that is it. And so, they have to modify their working hypothesis or their photon concept or both. They have no choice in this. They must fix their problem & fix it now; or they shall be inherited by 'empty-headed' Buddhists.
grover:
Most likely, that looks like 'crap' to you, only because you feel 'crappy' about it; correct? Well, you have every right in the world to feel very 'crappy' because of it! Your blue-color testimony on behalf of Dynes just doesn't cut it. Not only that, but it's actually hurting him and undermining the very foundations of his case. How is that? Let me show you. You stated several times that the inability of Dynes, the mystic, to describe his deity is the same as our inability to describe the sensation of blue color to a blind person. I agree with this premise. The two cases are indeed the same in this regard. Would you, now, accept the implications of your premise for the God of Dynes? Good! The impression of blue color cannot be described because it has no actual existence outside the human brain. The same applies to Dynes' God. He has no actual existence outside the brain of Dynes. And therefore, Dynes' God is an illusion and a mere figment of Dynes' hyperactive imagination. And hence, Dynes' God does not exist. The question, now, is this. How did Dynes arrive at his 'indescribable' image of God? The straightforward answer is that he arrived at it through hallucination. The vast majority of hallucinations can be easily described and reported. But there is, at least, one category of hallucinations defies description in words. This 'indescribable' type of hallucinations occurs in the human brain upon channeling the input of one of the senses to the wrong sensing center inside the brain. For example, when the input of the human ear is fed to the visual sensing system of the brain, the person in question starts seeing sounds and voices in color instead of hearing them as usual. The visual output of the audio input is unlike anything the person has seen before and 'indescribable'. And so if those disturbed individuals hear or recall the word 'God', they will see the image of 'God' in color and person! This is, in all likelihood, what happened to your poor Dynes. Now, grover; it appears to me that you had it and decided to quit; true? Well, in that case, I think I should thank you for your spirited discussion and defending the 'indescribable' vision of your poor Dynes; good luck. …
:bawl:
Last edited:
Yes, you are right so far and Denys would agree with you since in Christianity the Kingdom of God is within you.
This is where you lose the thread though. Seeing blu does not mean you are are hallucinating
No, your logic is very fucked up here. All subjective experiences are not hallucination.
No, what your argument actually hinges on at this point is saying that all subjective experiences are hallucination.
Your still missing the point. All subjective experiences of qualia are beyond language.
This is a pretty ridiculous assertion to make since Denys didnt describe God in color or as a person.
There is nothing poor about Denys. You obviously still are totally incapable of seeing what hes actually saying without trying to make his statemnts fit into your preconceived ideas about God.
It is not that impossible. Artificial-vision techniques can be used to
describe the blue color or any other color to the blind.
Do you have the time to go through these?
(1) http://www.seeingwithsound.com/etumble.htm
(2) http://www.faqs.org/health/Sick-V1/Color-Blindness.html
(3) http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/03/51163
(4) http://www.diycalculator.com/sp-cvision.shtml
You already agreed with me that describing blue is not possible. Why are you contradicting yourself? Why can't you just admit that there are somethings which cant be described by language?
It is not that impossible. Artificial-vision techniques can be used to
describe the blue color or any other color to the blind.
Do you have the time to go through these?
(1) http://www.seeingwithsound.com/etumble.htm
(2) http://www.faqs.org/health/Sick-V1/Color-Blindness.html
(3) http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/03/51163
(4) http://www.diycalculator.com/sp-cvision.shtml
Last edited:
I believe AAF gave a definition of God to Truthseeker which refered to God as;
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
As far as I know, there aren't any monotheistic religions where the object of faith, God, is not a purely spiritual being, or worshiped, only because he is the creator.
There is no other definition of God, than can be found in the scriptures, other than what we create for ourselves, which is ulitimately derived from the one God mentioned in all religious scriptures.
Your answers to my question had nothing to do with the "the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions", they were based on your preference, accepting God on your terms. This is materialistic without even trying, something we are all guilty of.
I won't bother asking you the question again, as I know you will not answer them directly.
Jan.
And if you had the decency to read my post you will have seen the answer.
I won't bother posting it again as I know you will not read it.
- Status