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

[phlogistician]

Einstein was a brilliant man and if a man of higher intelligence believes in God, it will tell you something.

Except Einstein, a brilliant man, did not believe in God per se.

To me, I think the most intelligent people are believers in God.

Except Einstein, a brilliant man, did not believe in God per se. But of course you saying such is self aggrandisement. Now you know 'the truth', and part of an elite. Which of course, is false. You are no better for your personal beliefs.

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.

So, do you think you got more clever when you started believing an unsupported hypthesis? You don't seem to grap that Einstein, a brilliant man, did not believe in God per se.

 

[usp8riot]

Despite my own personal theories pertaining to God, atleast the believers have a hypothesis/clue as to what is rather than having no clue or not caring to have a clue. But as to who is more intelligent, that is irrelevant in God's eyes. And Einstein not believing, I can't confirm this or deny it but have heard of him speak of God. Anyhow, it is not very relative to my point or really any backing to it but I guess it would be relevant to God of Einstein's belief to Him so I won't say it's irrelevant to anyone. I shouldn't have even said who I thought was more intelligent because it would make the less intelligent supposedly more predestined to find God which is not the case. Intelligence is both a blessing and a curse just as ignorance is.

 

[phlogistician]

, atleast the believers have a hypothesis/clue as to what is rather than having no clue or not caring to have a clue.

So are you saying, that having a belief, no matter how absurd, is better than having an open mind?

And Einstein not believing, I can't confirm this or deny it but have heard of him speak of God.

Then maybe you haven't been following this thread closely enough, and that makes you look less than intelligent. Einstein used the word 'god' in the phrase 'god does not play dice' because he was uneasy with some of the implications of quantum mechanics. This disposable phrase was not an endorsement! Can you not see that? Let me illustrate; When I hit my thumb with a hammer, I may say a word in the heat of the moment. That word might be 'Shit!', 'Fuck!' or 'God!'. It does not mean that I think 'shit', 'fuck', and 'god', are all deities, in whom I have personal belief.

I shouldn't have even said who I thought was more intelligent because it would make the less intelligent supposedly more predestined to find God which is not the case.

You contradict yourself here with your earlier post;

I think the most intelligent people are believers in God

So which is it?

While we on the subject of contradictions and changing positions, why did you start believing in god?

 

[usp8riot]

So are you saying, that having a belief, no matter how absurd, is better than having an open mind?

I am speaking of those that have an open mind but yet have a belief, a hypothesis, or they atleast searched to show they care to find the answer. That you know there is something deep down in them that shows they are trying to find a purpose for life and how things should be and/or why.

You can play word games all you want but Einstein made a 'more than likely' preconceived statement stating his thoughts on a work of God. It doesn't matter much to this argument anyway. He is not the last word. If Einstein believed in God or not, still wouldn't make God any less likely.

You contradict yourself here with your earlier post

People have a tendency to assume others like themselves have the same viewpoints. I used to believe I was not smart enough to concieve of God as a disbeliever and saw it the other way around. Now I think I'm smart enough to conceive of a creator so maybe I was too quick to type on that one. That shows where haste gets you, only mixing up your words. But that is for only God to say who believes or not. I shouldn't have said anything.

While we on the subject of contradictions and changing positions, why did you start believing in god?

Because I thought there had to be something there. Seemed logical to me. Just as you see a ball rolling down the hall, you assume someone or something is there/has been there to make the ball roll. That is probably one of many logical arguments I made to myself while trying to get down to the bottom of it all.

 

[phlogistician]

Ok, I gave you the benefit of doubt usp8triot, but you have clearly demonstrated that you aren't very clever;

The 'logical argument' that something had to get the 'ball rolling' isn't logical, and is actually rather short sighted, because you stop at god. Why don't you ask what started 'god' rolling, eh? Your logic collapses right there.

 

[wesmorris]

Hmm.. not to defend, but all logical argument begin at their assumptions. In the case at hand it's obvious that the assumption is "god" as "that which got the ball rolling". Don't you think?

 

[Light Travelling]

Concepts Concepts Concepts


Its all about human conceptualisation. Contradiction in the concepts we may have about the nature of god, gods or any entities, does not mean those entities do not exist – it simply means the concepts that define them are wrong.

(it could still mean they don’t exist but it doesn’t prove it)

Let me give an example; over the millennia man has formed many concepts as to the nature of the earth. We have thought it flat; we have also thought it to be the static centre of the universe around which the sun turns!!

As our conceptualisations of the planet we live on change, does the nature of the planet change – no of course not. Because logically the earth cannot be flat did that mean that the earth did not exist – no , just that the concept was wrong.

Now apply the same logic to god…


It has taken us over 10,000 years to manage to get the correct concept (at least I assume it is correct) of the solid tangible object we live on, an object we see and touch every day. Now why would anyone think that in the same timescale we should have managed the same level of conceptualisation of abstract matters such as creation, gods, and the ultimate nature of reality???? And why should failure to have formed correct concepts prove non existence???

 

[phlogistician]

Hmm.. not to defend, but all logical argument begin at their assumptions. In the case at hand it's obvious that the assumption is "god" as "that which got the ball rolling". Don't you think?

It's not an assumption that starts this line of thought though is it? it is a question; "How did we come to be here?".

It is therefore a question of how far one wishes to regress. To the point of actual creation, or to a convenient cop out point. Stopping asking "Where did it come from?" when you get to god means you have abandoned the goal of finding an answer.

Take 'atoms'. Democritus sat around wonder what stuff was made of. He knew some things were made from other things, and wondered how divisble these things were. Eventually, he postulated, you had to get to something that was indivisible, and called it the atom. That is the 'god' answer, if you like. At some point, we abandon regression when it becomes too much of a headfuck.

 

[usp8riot]

Believing in God doesn't answer any more questions so it is not abandoned regression when other answers are overwhelming. In fact, I spend a lot of time questioning and answering subjects that were brought up by belieiving in a God in my own head and others who wonder the same as I do. God, as I see Him, is not a stopping point. He is infinity, after all. If only I could sum up more of my previous posts on here I could get my point across better.

The 'logical argument' that something had to get the 'ball rolling' isn't logical, and is actually rather short sighted, because you stop at god. Why don't you ask what started 'god' rolling, eh? Your logic collapses right there.

What's not so logical about it? ball=a, rolling=b, unseeable entity which is the God/birther of a force=c. What's not so logical? Even if it is a human who got the ball rolling in the hallway, the human would be the birther of that force. How can you deny that? You know something/someone had to get the ball rolling. You know you can't see it. You know a force was applied on the ball. How can I simplify this argument anymore in lamens terms? If you can't understand this, one of my simplest arguments for God, I'm afraid you couldn't understand any of my more complicated ones.

 

[wesmorris]

But all of your arguments must necessarily be no more than speculation, in regardes to an unseeable/undetectable entity. Even calling it "entity" is speculation. You don't know what it is, and anthropomorphize it to suit your circumstance... then you project it onto your environment in the form of judgement and expectation. Perfectly natural of course, but I am not subject to your conjecture excepting if you force it upon me. Lol. You said "this is the end times". LOL. How long have people been saying that? Millenia I tellsya. "millenium psychology" is one way I've heard it referenced, but that's a whole other topic.

face it patriot, you're as full of shit as the next guy. deal with that, preachy man.

 

[AAF]

Jan Ardena: "...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...".

:m:

So you are an irrationalist. Aren't you?
And in any case, how can you get anything out of experience without the help of logic or at least some common sense?

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

That is an erroneous conclusion.
What is your rationale for it?

A whole universe of ideas and ideals has been known to be out there since the time of Plato, even though none of those perfect ideas and ideals have any basis in reality. And therefore, 'God' can be a perfect ideal without having to be real at all.


Jan Ardena: "... the 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...".

'is the biggest headache'?
That is expected.
What do you think? Doing science is easy?
Therefore, your main objection to Darwin's theory is incoherent and defective.
Give it up!

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

What?
We can't imagine the 'size of an ocean'!
You have a very dim view of human imagination, pal?

 

[usp8riot]

But all of your arguments must necessarily be no more than speculation, in regardes to an unseeable/undetectable entity.

No speculation to me, I know. I am placing my soul on the line for a God that tells me what is wrong and what is right and hopefully to make a change for the good in religion and so people like you will understand it more. So what have you put your soul on the line for?

You don't know what it is, and anthropomorphize it to suit your circumstance... then you project it onto your environment in the form of judgement and expectation

Yes, I know. I can't see it, but I am beyond that. There is more to me than that. You know not where I have been mentally so you can't play psychologist and tell me where I've been and what my mind sees. I project nothing on my environment but logic. And I judge no individual, just general wrongs. Seems to me you are the one judging me. And your cursing doesn't help.

face it patriot, you're as full of sh*t as the next guy. deal with that, preachy man.

Nope, I have to disagree. There is more to the truth than what you can conceptualize. I am the free one, you are as a man stuck in a cage. Break free from the cage and you'll be free. You are a perfectionist at heart as I was, you cannot believe, you have to 'know'. I know how it is. I am or was a perfectionist at everything. Couldn't stand something being unperfect or a theory untested. That's one thing that drew me to science. In life, there is theories that we can't fully support and we just have to face it.

 

[wesmorris]

"And I judge no individual"

"I am the free one, you are as a man stuck in a cage"

*sigh*

 

[Hapsburg]

What you can't stand, is the fact that Einstein, one of (if not the) greatest scientists of all time, believed in God.

Actually, he didn't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Religious_views

Although he was raised Jewish, Einstein was not a believer in the religious aspects of Judaism, though he still considered himself an ethnic Jew. He did not believe in a personal god, but rather in a set of deterministic physical laws governing the universe, and possibly in a creator god that set the universe in motion

Very different from what you are talking about.

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

If you cannot imagine the size of an ocean, you have a severe mental disability and/or the mind of a five-year old child.

 

[AAF]

usp8riot: "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".



No, that is a wrong statement to make.
Einstein or no Einstein, truth can never be relative.
And what was false yesterday is false today and false tomorrow and false forever. Otherwise, you have to quit the thinking business altogether.


usp8riot: "Naive for not knowing who God's God is. No more naive than you for not even knowing God".

Sorry, the 'NAIVE' is not you!
It's those priests and rabbis and imams and gurus plus DiamondHearts and plus Jan Ardena and all others who believe their ancient books prove the existence of God.

 

[usp8riot]

I used to believe the truth was the truth also, no matter what. As I've grown, I notice things aren't so black and white anymore. And yes, I think there is a certain naievity to a lot of theist arguments of God when it's not backed with much science. Some people just require more proof than others, I was one who needed lots of proof. You can't really blame them for being trusty sometimes, there's a good and bad to it just as there is a good and bad to some of us who aren't as trusting of what we hear and need more evidence. But if you look through other eyes, some also see you the way you see them, but we all are naive in ways. No one knows everything.

 

[Archie]

The ongoing failed premise in this thread is overwhelmingly funny. Almost.

Because it's much simpler to assume that the world is eternal.

Except of course we know the world - universe - all of creation - is not eternal. The premise fails right there.

God doesn't exist. AAF has decided God doesn't exist. Deophobes would be funny if they weren't tragic.

 

[Jan Ardena]

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.

a) The only description which defines God, in your definitions, is "Absolute." It is what distinguishes him as God, above all else.

b) There are definitions within the bible which come close to defining the essence of God. Try reading the songs of Solomon for starters.

c) By "scriptoral", I don't just mean the bible.

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.

I am not familiar with this "hypothesis" or its functions, and you accuse me falsely. Can you shed light on this hypothesis, and how it came to be?

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.

This is a perfect example of your tactics, and lack of understanding, of who and what God is, regardless of belief. You fail to acknowledge Gods greatness, even as a fictional character, but feel no way about portraying Him as a bad person. As such your biased attitudes creates a closed-minded attitude.

Jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

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

That does not explain what "love" is. We can have those type of relationships for other reasons than love, and we can act in the opposite manner, but really love. I'm afraid you have to do better than that to explain what "love" is.

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?

You think it is false, and I have no reason to think its false.
It would be pointless to ask you why you think it is false, as you have created a straw-man God, who must act within the laws of nature, so your contradiction idea can have credibility. And we would end up going around in circles.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena: "...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...".

:m:

So you are an irrationalist. Aren't you?

I'm just making a point of fact.

And in any case, how can you get anything out of experience without the help of logic or at least some common sense?

Sometimes, sometimes not.
It depends on the type of experience.

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

That is an erroneous conclusion.
What is your rationale for it?

If God has no basis in reality, then God is not God. If He is God, then He has to be the Ultimate reality (by definition) as He is the source of everything.

A whole universe of ideas and ideals has been known to be out there since the time of Plato, even though none of those perfect ideas and ideals have any basis in reality.

We obviously have different views of reality.

And therefore, 'God' can be a perfect ideal without having to be real at all.

That's one understanding, but there are different levels of understanding God, its not as simple as you probably think.
People are different, but you seem to think of humans, as all being the same, and as such should think, act, and feel, in a certain way, and those fall outside the zone, are somehow lesser and deluded.
What's the difference between this attitude, and that of a religious fanatic?

Therefore, your main objection to Darwin's theory is incoherent and defective.
Give it up!

Where is this so-called objection to Darwins theory?

What?
We can't imagine the 'size of an ocean'!
You have a very dim view of human imagination, pal?

So in your imagination, you can actually see the size of the ocean in one go?
That's what "imagining the size of the ocean" is.
Or were you thinking of imagining a mathematical calculation?
Or perhaps reduce the oceans greatness to fit inside your scope?

Jan.