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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grantywanty said:
Light is both a particle and a wave. Light even down to one photon acts like a separate particle AND a wave. This is self-contradictory. Light does not exist.
Click to expand...
:bawl:


Hello Grantywanty;


I assume you're referring 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.


;)
 
Tht1Gy! said:
From your link: "one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

"Occam's razor is a logical principle attributed to the mediaeval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies." All italics mine.

Thx for the link. Pretty cool. Try reading it.:roflmao:

Ps. AAL, grover- "brevity is the soul of wit"*. And solid posting.
*I think that's the quote.
Click to expand...
:)

And that means you were way off; right?

;)
 
Tht1Gy! said:
Doesn't change my posistion one iota. :roflmao:
Click to expand...
:p



Therefore, you don't have a clue what the fuss is all about!

The following deduction is true regardless of any change in your 'position':

• Every entity whose concept is self-contradictory does not exist.
• The concept of God is self-contradictory.
• Therefore, God does not exist.



:D
 
:cool:




grover: " Exactly ".



Re: Are you sure you don't disagree? Let me illustrate what I meant! Picture two co-centric circles. The larger circle is the set of every thing subjective. The smaller circle is the set of everything anthropomorphic. Therefore, every anthropomorphic thing is subjective; but not every subjective thing is anthropomorphic. And that is because the circle of the subjective is larger than the circle of the anthropomorphic. That is to say there are more subjective things than anthropomorphic things in the world. Do you agree with this?


=================================================

grover: " Good. Now, take a close look above where you said "Every anthropomorphic definition of God is subjective; but the reverse is not true" ".



Re: And that is because every anthropomorphic definition of God is in the smaller circle; i.e. anthropomorphic and subjective at the same time. Can you see the rationale behind this? It's because every element in the smaller circle is an element of the larger circle as well.


=================================================

grover: " Right, but in your own words "the reverse it not true" ".



Re: Of course, the reverse is not true. And that is because not every element in the larger circle is an element of the smaller circle. To put it differently, not every subjective element is anthropomorphic, even though every anthropomorphic element is subjective by definition.


=================================================

grover: " Only, if you mean to imply that only material objects exist ".



Re: If God has no attribute at all, then He must be the Point of Absolute Nothingness. It's ironclad and very clear; and you just can't play 'sophist or confused mystic' with it!


=================================================

grover: " Energy is not a material object. Which means is it exists then a God that is not an object could exist ".



Re: Energy is matter and matter is energy. It's ironclad and very obvious; and you just can't play 'monkey' with it!


=================================================

grover: " Only to other fundamentalists ".



Re: It's ironclad in the eyes of every rational and clever being everywhere in the vast universe.


=================================================

grover: " Iron-clad? Iron-clad in the sense that the Bible is true because it says its true "?



Re: Leave that 'Sacred Book' alone! Logically forgone conclusions are logically forgone conclusions; and you just can't monkey with them!


=================================================

grover: " I will end where I began. I think you have finally conceded it is not (anthropomorphic) unless you are now going to try some intellectually dishonest attempt at saying "Point of Absolute Nothingness" is anthropomorphic as well ".



Re: Once again, 'Intellectual dishonesty' is for 'Mystics in love' to play with! As soon as the mental jump is made and Denys' God is stripped of every conceivable attribute, He ceases to exist even in your imagination. That is to say Denys' God and the Point of Absolute Nothingness become the one and the same entity. This conclusion is forgone and ironclad and very clear; and you just can't play 'sophist or confused mystic' with it. Just take a look at what you've ended up with after all those weeks of 'rumbling', grover! You're literally between a rock and hard place. Either you have to concede that God is anthropomorphic just as I've pointed out right from the beginning. Or you have to concede that God and the Point of Absolute Nothingness are the one and the same entity. In short, you're really between a rock and hard place; right?



:)
 
Enmos said:
Hi AAF,
yes i agree. I was commenting on the entire post, not just the bold part. :shrug:
Click to expand...
:)



What do you mean?

That 'Tht1Gy' can barely post more than a couple of complete sentences.
Do you know why?

It's because 'Tht1Gy' is most likely a clone of the well-known DUDE called 'TruthSeeker'! What do you think?



;)
 
Grantywanty said:
Light is both a particle and a wave. Light even down to one photon acts like a separate particle AND a wave. This is self-contradictory. Light does not exist.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:



Hello 'Science-Loving' Dude;


Very Good!
I thought you were talking about the Double-Slit experiment.

This second argument of yours is quite shaky and easy to debunk.

Obviously, you think that the 'photon' is a contradictory entity, because it is made up of particles and waves. Or to put it differently, the photon, according to you, is a 'wave & particle' at the same time; right?

Well, you have to think more carefully about this 'photon' thing.

In particular, the 'wave', here, is not a classical wave like that of the ocean.
The 'wave' of the photon, in the parlance of the Quantum folks, is a wave of probability.

Do you understand? It is not a real wave. It's an abstract kind of waves called the 'waves of probability'. Does this make sense to you? Google for more!

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, therefore, the photon is not a self-contradictory entity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation
And hence, your above argument does not hold water, because it's full of holes and false.




:D
 
AAF said:
That 'Tht1Gy' can barely post more than a couple of complete sentences.
Do you know why?
Click to expand...
Neither do you!
Kiss my Tight White Ass dick face. you been flamed!
I have a motor response disability, et. al. and the postes I do make take anywhere from 15 min for the shorter posts and the longer ones can take an hour. F.O.A.D.!
It's because 'Tht1Gy' is most likely a clone of the well-known DUDE called 'TruthSeeker'! What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think you're an asshole. Yes I realize I might get in a lot of trouble for this post...
I will not be mocked with impunity.
Make fun of my ideas fine, not my disabilities
My apologizes to the other folks on this board, Mostly folks here are nice.

Oh DickAAFWeed by way of example this post took me 25-30 mins to type.
 
Tht1Gy! said:
Neither do you!
Kiss my Tight White Ass dick face. you been flamed!
I have a motor response disability, et. al. and the postes I do make take anywhere from 15 min for the shorter posts and the longer ones can take an hour. F.O.A.D.!

I think you're an asshole. Yes I realize I might get in a lot of trouble for this post...
I will not be mocked with impunity.
Make fun of my ideas fine, not my disabilities
My apologizes to the other folks on this board, Mostly folks here are nice.

Oh DickAAFWeed by way of example this post took me 25-30 mins to type.
Click to expand...
:eek:





So now to cover it, you’ve disabled your ‘Prime Mover’?
Good for you, ‘tight-white-a*-d*-faced’ clone!

You can’t dare to post a couple of sentences, not because you’re disabled; but because you don’t want anyone else to discover that you’re a clone of that well-known DUDE.
http://www.foad.org/




:p
 
AAF said:
So now to cover it, you’ve disabled your ‘Prime Mover’?
Good for you, ‘tight-white-a*-d*-faced’ clone!
Click to expand...
Name calling? That gets one in trouble.
You can’t dare to post a couple of sentences, not because you’re disabled; but because you don’t want anyone else to discover that you’re a clone of that well-known DUDE.
http://www.foad.org/
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get in trouble over this again.
I don't know what 'Prime Mover' refers to, and I had never heard of the link you referred to before this. I was just using the initials of a well known expression.
I have A.D.H.D., very high end.(A.D.H.D. is recognized in the ADA) My typing speed is very low and I have to check my posts thoroughly to make sure I have spelled, & punctuated properly. I also have to check to make sure I haven't skipped words and concepts, as I sometimes do. And I'm a bit of a perfectionist.
And when I was 14 I had a severe head injury. Ya know, the kind where one's heart quits beating and one goes into a coma?
My recovery was 99.5%-99.9% complete, but there are some lasting effects.
I'll not respond to another of your rude posts.
(this post took 35 min.)
(make that 40)
Finally, I don't much care for long winded posts.

As I quoted before: "Brevity is the soul of wit."


wit 1 |wit|
noun
1 mental sharpness and inventiveness; keen intelligence...

2 a natural aptitude for using words and ideas in a quick and inventive way...

ORIGIN Old English wit(t), gewit(t), denoting the mind as the seat of consciousness, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch weet and German Witz, also to wit 2.
Apple Dictionary 1.0.1
 
This has no contribution to the thread. It would seem, therefore, that the topic has been exhausted since you are now resorting to such demeaning and insulting posts. The thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top