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

[DiamondHearts]

DiamondHearts: "There was never any such thing. I'm a student of Islamic theology, I would know about this. To my fellow Muslims, I'm not a heretic, I'm a student of religion...".



Very good!

Denying the BAN is a very important step towards taking it out of the clerics' heads. But make sure you have done it the right way!
It's dangerous and it may backfire.
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/211319.shtml

ok... whatever

Be advised!

Your narrow-minded clerics are very tough and usually become very angry when you throw the following and very basic question on them:

Who created the Creator (Allah)?

The question is wrong because Allah swt was, is, and always will be. He has no beginning or end. If anyone gives a different answer, they can no longer be Muslim.

Peace.

 

[Jan Ardena]

God can create Himself out of NOTHING. Therefore, NOTHINGNESS is greater than Him.

a) Why do you think God must have been created?
b) What exactly is nothing (on its own)

In short, the idea of God is self-contradictory, and logically unfounded.

And so is, the idea of “love”, to one who has no experience, attempting to rationalise its meaning through modern-science and logic.

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.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

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!

Within the matrix of modern society, I agree.
But modern society (as gigantic machine) is inimical toward (the one) God, His devotees, their followers, and people who have a leaning toward God-consciousness.
But in reality, you’re idea is meaningless and empty, because everyone has to decide for themselves at some point in their life, not through logic or modern-science, but through experience.

God has no basis in reality,…

Either He has no basis, or He is the ultimate reality.
This is what it comes down to.

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
The idea behind Occam's Razor is not that the simplest theory (e.g. God did it) is the preferred one. It is that the simplest theory that is based on the observed evidence is the preferred one.

I respectfully disagree. The natural is much simpler than the artificial. The theory of evolution, therefore, is the simplest of the TWO.

I agree that thatthe theory of evolution is simple, but to explain how it could possibly have occurred, is the biggest headache. In short it has to be accepted on faith, while pretending it is based on scientific fact. In reality it is doomed from the start, but within modern-society it is thriving just like the 45 minute threat of mass-destruction from the sophisticated weapon arsenal of Saddam Hussein.

If God is unimaginable, then He is logically untenable, and therefore, He does not exist.

Non-sequitor.
There are many things that we know exist, but cannot imagine. i.e. the size of an ocean.

Jan.

 

[AAF]

DiamondHearts: "...The question is wrong because Allah swt was, is, and always will be. He has no beginning or end. If anyone gives a different answer, they can no longer be Muslim Peace".



Your answer is not an answer at all.

How on Earth, you always insist that everything must have a creator, but when somebody ask you 'Who created the Creator?', you just say 'was, is, & will be'!

So if that is your only answer, we are back to SQUARE ONE!
Why do we need, in this case, your 'Allah'?
We will save ourselves a lot of hard work and headache, if we just assume right from the start that the natural world was, is, and will be. It has no beginning or end. If anyone gives a different answer, they can no longer be rational beings.

 

[AAF]

DiamondHearts: "...To my fellow Muslims, I'm not a heretic, I'm a student of religion...".



What is this?
A heart of diamond?
Or a heart of butter?

Heresy, my friend, is a badge of honour.

:m:

 

[AAF]

Jan Ardena: "a) Why do you think God must have been created?
b) What exactly is nothing (on its own)".



The hypothesis of God is supposed to explain why the natural world exists.

For the most part, the supposition works (He created it all!), except in one single and extremely important case: Who created Him?
It collapses completely and fails miserably in this case.

And so, as you see, the hypothesis of God is really useless, and it does not explain a thing. And that is why religious people become agitated, confounded, and very angry, if you ask them this simple question:

Who created the Creator?

For the second part of your objection, this fabulous book is enough.
Buy it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375420991/002-1625715-6358454?v=glance&n=283155

 

[AAF]

Jan Ardena: "...And so is, the idea of “love”, to one who has no experience, attempting to rationalise its meaning through modern-science and logic...".



No, the analogy is false.

The idea of love is a consistent one.
It contains no contradictions or infinities of any kind.
And you need no experience of it, in order to understand what love is.
That is on one hand.

On the other hand, the idea of God is fraught with contradictions of all sorts.
In most respects, the idea of God is very similar to the idea of 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.

You can, of course, assume it as given and turn a blind eye to its contradictions. But such an ostrich-like method is really foolish and it leads to nowhere.

Do you agree?

 

[Jan Ardena]

AAF,

The hypothesis of God is supposed to explain why the natural world exists.

Says who?

For the most part, the supposition works (He created it all!), except in one single and extremely important case: Who created Him?
It collapses completely and fails miserably in this case.

Your problem lies in the fact that you have totally disregarded scriptures and set set up a straw man/God.
God isn't a physical being, whether you believe He exists or not. He is not subject to the laws of nature, and the only way you can have a real discussion about God, is to accept the scriptoral descriptions, regardless.

And so, as you see, the hypothesis of God is really useless, and it does not explain a thing.

You have assumed that the point of God is to explain nature. Where do you get this material from? It is little wonder you see Him as useless.

And that is why religious people become agitated, confounded, and very angry, if you ask them this simple question:

Who created the Creator?

Personally I find it amusing, because the questionaires are either purposely ignorant of God, or desperate to win an argument regardless of truth. The group of people who truly do not know, I try to reason with.

Jan.
:m:

 

[Jan Ardena]

The idea of love is a consistent one.

You're kidding right?

It contains no contradictions or infinities of any kind.

How do you know?

And you need no experience of it, in order to understand what love is.
That is on one hand.

Then please be kind enough to explain what love is.

On the other hand, the idea of God is fraught with contradictions of all sorts.

One mans contradiction is another mans revelation. Remember, we are all individuals, with individual experiences.

In most respects, the idea of God is very similar to the idea of 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.

Please explain this analogy....it sounds quite interesting.

You can, of course, assume it as given and turn a blind eye to its contradictions. But such an ostrich-like method is really foolish and it leads to nowhere.

Do you agree?

If what you say is truth, then yes, I agree. But I don't understand what you're talking about.
Be straight-foreward and show the contradictions regarding God, instead of using analogies.

Jan.

 

[usp8riot]

The hypothesis of God is supposed to explain why the natural world exists.

It does, it exists for us, and for us to do His will.

For the most part, the supposition works (He created it all!), except in one single and extremely important case: Who created Him?

It is obviously not for us to know since He didn't tell us. He says He is infinite. You can believe in an infinite universe and since God in my belief is one with the universe, you can't believe in an infinite God, as in was, is, will be? Einstein said matter can neither be created nor destroyed. You can believe that but not a God who made matter who cannot be created or destroyed? As in always was, is, and will be?

And so, as you see, the hypothesis of God is really useless, and it does not explain a thing.

It explains enough to me. You have to search on your own also, and think. God is within us. Seek and ye shall find.

And that is why religious people become agitated, confounded, and very angry, if you ask them this simple question:

Correction; most, maybe. I love challenging questions like that but seen it many times and it gets old. You'd have to be a fool to come here and expect someone to know who created God. Yes, maybe you're using it to push down the religious here but we all know it's irrelevant. If there was such an answer, people would be asking then who created the creator of God and it would never end, just as little annoying children asking the same old repetitive questions over and over.

And thought I would answer these also. Not all religious people have the same views.

 

[(Q)]

Einstein said matter can neither be created nor destroyed. You can believe that but not a God who made matter who cannot be created or destroyed? As in always was, is, and will be?

I can't stand it when religious nutters use Einstein to attempt to make a point.

It explains enough to me. You have to search on your own also, and think. God is within us. Seek and ye shall find.

It explains what you want it to explain, and you want the explanation to be god. That is not the reality of it, though. Many people here have searched for your god and have only been able to find him buried in your imagination.

You'd have to be a fool to come here and expect someone to know who created God. Yes, maybe you're using it to push down the religious here but we all know it's irrelevant. If there was such an answer, people would be asking then who created the creator of God and it would never end, just as little annoying children asking the same old repetitive questions over and over.

Unfortunately, theists claim a great many things about their gods, yet are unable to answer questions which pose a paradox.

Not all religious people have the same views.

That's one of the many reasons why religion is worthless and dangerous.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

I can't stand it when religious nutters use Einstein to attempt to make a point.

What you can't stand, is the fact that Einstein, one of (if not the) greatest scientists of all time, believed in God.
Kinda stings doesn't it?
Something like the sprinkling of holy water.

It explains what you want it to explain, and you want the explanation to be god.

And you want it to be nonsense.
Probably to stop the stinging sensation.

That is not the reality of it, though. Many people here have searched for your god and have only been able to find him buried in your imagination.

And that is the reality of it..heh?

Unfortunately, theists claim a great many things about their gods, yet are unable to answer questions which pose a paradox.

You create the paradox with no intention of accepting any explanations.
Why?
Because you are anti-God, and because of this there is actually no point in discussing God with mindsets like yours, for any reason, other than fun.

Jan.

 

[(Q)]

What you can't stand, is the fact that Einstein, one of (if not the) greatest scientists of all time, believed in God.
Kinda stings doesn't it?
Something like the sprinkling of holy water.

Still haven't learned a thing, have you, Jan?

 

[phlogistician]

(Q),



What you can't stand, is the fact that Einstein, one of (if not the) greatest scientists of all time, believed in God.
Kinda stings doesn't it?
Something like the sprinkling of holy water.

Would it make god more credible, if Einstein believed in him?

The opinion of a mortal, makes the existence of a god more likely? Please, stop, I'm laughing that hard my sides hurt! Isaac Newton believed in God. He also wore funny wigs. He had absolutely NO scientific reason for his wig habit. Maybe the same can be said for his belief on god? ;-)

Anyway, wouldn't Einstein have been referring to the Jewish god, saviour of the chosen people, when he said 'god does not play dice'? ;-)

But anyway, Einstein himself said;

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Again Jan, you are incapable of understanding what is written clearly in black and white. You are fated to lose every relgious debate because of this!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

But anyway, Einstein himself said;

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

Again Jan, you are incapable of understanding what is written clearly in black and white. You are fated to lose every relgious debate because of this!

Einstein also said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

and: "A religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation"

He was not an orthodox believer, but none the less had strong spiritual beliefs. He clearly saw no conflict between science and spirituality, which might lead one to question why some atheists on this forum do!

See http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/faith.html for more.

 

[AAF]

Jan Ardena: "...Your problem lies in the fact that you have totally disregarded scriptures and set set up a straw man/God.
God isn't a physical being, whether you believe He exists or not. He is not subject to the laws of nature, and the only way you can have a real discussion about God, is to accept the scriptoral descriptions, regardless...".



And what are, pal, those definitions of God in the holy scriptures?

Count:
1. Absolute Monarch
2. Absolute Creator
3. Lord of the Army
4. Liberator of the Israelites
5. Enemy of Pharaoh
6. Creator of Hell for punishing the sinner & the wicked
7. Creator of Heaven for rewarding the blessed & the blissed
..............etc......................etc...................etc...
...............etc......................etc....................etc...

Of all the above, 'the Absolute Creator' is the most important.
Without the power to create, God for all practical purposes is good for nothing. And that is why folks of faith are talking about creation all the time.

You can't get yourself off the hook by simply asserting that 'You (I & others) have assumed that the point of God is to explain nature. Where do you get this material from? It is little wonder you see Him as useless'.
That is an empty talk and hot air!
Because one of the most important functions of the God hypothesis is to explain nature and why the natural world came to existence in the first place.

Obviously, your denial of that function is amusing if not frivolous. Because the above statements of yours are either purposely ignorant of the God of the holy scriptures, or desperate to create a straw-man argument regardless of the facts and the truth.

 

[AAF]

Jan Ardena: "You're kidding right? How do you know? Then please be kind enough to explain what love is".

:m:

Jan, you're really trying to create a big riddle out of a very simple thing.

What is love?

Every human being alive knows what love is all about.
And just to make sure you are really serious and not playing around with words, check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

Jan Ardena:: "One mans contradiction is another mans revelation. Remember, we are all individuals, with individual experiences".

:bugeye:

That is nice Jan, but out of context!

One man's junk could be another man's treasure.

But the contradictions uncovered by one man can never ever be another man's revelations or inspirations.

What is false is always false regardless of people's types or ways of thinking.

Right?

 

[AAF]

usp8riot: "...It is obviously not for us to know since He didn't tell us...".



He didn't tell us?
Good one!
Naive, but honest!
Why should we believe Him, if He did tell us, or more accurately, some charlatan told us that He told him?

 

[usp8riot]

What is false is always false regardless of people's types or ways of thinking.

Wrong. As Einstein said, space and time are relative to the observer. There is never going to be anyone else with the same view as another individual. It all depends on the laws of physics when observing a physical action. Or are we talking morals. In that case, that is false also. As time/space is relative to the observer, so are rules relative to the growth of the individual. Not much to do with each other, but as time moves on and spaces change, we all know there need be different rules for different environments and maturity levels. That's why we have many holy texts.

Naive, but honest!

Naive for not knowing who God's God is. No more naive than you for not even knowing God.

 

[phlogistician]

Einstein also said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

So he would have made a good mediator and politician as well as a scientist!

Jan was using an 'appeal to authority' argument, claiming that Einstein believed in god. This was implying that Einstein believed in HER god, and further implying that this validated her religion.

Of course, this is not only false logic, but based on a falsehood. For Einstien's opinion on God to be of significant importance, there would have to be a God factor in general relativity!

 

[usp8riot]

Einstein was a brilliant man and if a man of higher intelligence believes in God, it will tell you something. To me, I think the most intelligent people are believers in God. Of course, I could see how someone else could see it different. I used to think the opposite when I didn't believe in God.