How can God not exist?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
OK, some heat for Signal and those she references, even going beyond, to God's refutation, to tip the balance:
The dream of an Ultimate Complexity of Being fade for this supposed Elemental Fellow who was supposed to be before all, for not only is He self-contradictory, but it also that the basics of the all could have have no creation since there is nothing to make them of, this even holding for an electron or a quark.
The karma of paradoxes runs over the dogma of the Godma, ever the preordained result of making groundless pronouncements. The deathly spiral of paradox ever follows the carving of wishes into the stone hollows of dogma forever blocked from the allowables. The believing dance grinds to the elemental of that Being who can never be fundamental.
Because whether my answer is "yes" or "no", or even the answer I did give, it DOES NOT support YOUR supposition. And your supposition is what your "argument" rests on.
Then you haven't read Jan's post. Jan is "getting the heat" for altering the "proof" and pre-supposing the answer as part of the premise. Which has been pointed out by at least two posters.
And, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, by using this argument you are merely denying that god is god.
This is a fallacious as Jan's argument which is essentially "god exists therefore god exists".
Yours is "god isn't god therefore he doesn't exist".
True, God wouldn't exist for then it would but be an alien life-form who came along later and didn't create the universe, as I pointed out many times, but made of what was already there. Nor would I call it a 'God' either.
Nor do I appeal to magic for a God that would allow Him as an ultimate conglomerate system of mind to precede its parts by inventing terms to allow for it and its planning, thinking, and creation of all the specific particulars of the universe.
Jan, by contrast, shows nothing at all of how God could exist as the first and foremost before all else, and so there is no parallel. I am prompting him and her to show, rather than to just assume and go on, just as you do.
I see no actual countering to my arguments.
My point is that your contention ie, god does not exist, or, god is a mental concoction are also suppositions (unless you can demonstrate otherwise).
So what if it has been pointed out?
I'm not putting anything forward as a fact, just ideas to be discussed.
Isn't that what these forums are about?
jan.
Untrue.
Because you're so locked into your view that you can't see that you're as effectively blind as Jan.
An argument that "god isn't god" doesn't negate anything, since you aren't arguing against "god" but your particular interpretation of god - one which does not accord with the "standard definition".
That's not what I have contended. Try reading my posts: what I have done is point out that your "proof" doesn't hold up.
Then the "answer" has already been given. What else is there to discuss?
And also as has been pointed out your further "argument" does not hold up: you persist in resorting to supposition and a priori assumptions to arrive at your conclusion.
This is erroneous if not outright dishonest.
In fact, typical behaviour from you.
Dwy...
That's not my argument.
My question is, ''how can God NOT exist?''
Or in answer to the contentions, ''how can the finite mind conceive of the infinite''?
jan.
That's not my argument.
My question is, ''how can God NOT exist?''
Or in answer to the contentions, ''how can the finite mind conceive of the infinite''?
jan.
Wrong. Post 461 was exactly that. And that is what I have been showing the errors in.
And, essentially, the OP was also that argument:
A pre-supposition leading to your desired conclusion.
And you have been show how.
You have to show first that we actually do "conceive the infinite".
Dywyddyr,
You've pointed out that they are suppositions, and you've implied that they are illogical. But you haven't shown conclusively how this is so.
My answer has already been given, but I'm open to refutation which is what I said. We'll see if Signal feels the same way you do when he/she sees it.
That's your opinion, as I said we'll see what the person for whom the argument was intended for, has to say. Or anybody else that may have an interest.
How is any other philosophical discourse about God's existence different?
That's your opinion.
And I think there is a deeper issue with you, regarding me,
which is why you are desparately trying to get me banned.
Why don't you say what's really on your mind?
jan.
You've pointed out that they are suppositions, and you've implied that they are illogical. But you haven't shown conclusively how this is so.
My answer has already been given, but I'm open to refutation which is what I said. We'll see if Signal feels the same way you do when he/she sees it.
That's your opinion, as I said we'll see what the person for whom the argument was intended for, has to say. Or anybody else that may have an interest.
How is any other philosophical discourse about God's existence different?
That's your opinion.
And I think there is a deeper issue with you, regarding me,
which is why you are desparately trying to get me banned.
Why don't you say what's really on your mind?
jan.
The standard definition is that God, being all powerful and knowing and all that there was created the universe, possibly then being everything around in it and controlling it, but I am not concerned with that last part which contrasts with a God who just left everything alone thereafter.
I am showing why God can't exist as defined (not a Johny-come-lately form like us, evolved beyond us). I am not showing God isn't God, for there cannot be one as such a self-contradictory notion. Self-contradiction is the only way to disprove a universal negative, and so I have employed it.
Those wanting God to to be an elemental complexity and also refute me must now explain their magic of how this Being can be, as well as surely say what everything can be made of, for I did my part on the contrary.
It is all too often that people even assume God and then merrily roll along to then speak for Him, assuming more and more, etc, even building a whole an further structure out of it all. Now there is even more of a counter-weight, and by explaining, they will get more into the basis of my logic rather than merely halting at a word, Gods, which begs for even more answers, not less, and not a 'stop'. This may take some prodding, but it ever comes to this.
No. I have pointed out that they are suppositions and that getting a conclusion from an a priori supposition is illogical.
You HAVE been refuted.
So the other posters that also pointed out your errors haven't opened your eyes?
Don't be ridiculous: any argument that intends to prove god's existence cannot start with the supposition that he does.
I've said it many times: you are devious, fallacious and dishonest.
You are incapable of, or unwilling to, follow a chain of logic if it gets anywhere near questioning god's existence, and will resort to diversion, obfuscation and lies in order to avoid the conclusion. And then you come back at a later time to start all over again without one single acknowledgement of previous points.
Yet one of the attributes of god is that he was always there and is eternal. Claiming that he can't have been there for the start is simply denying this attribute.
Regardless of how he is supposed to be there, that is part of what the definition is. Using what we know about how things arose in our universe is not a refutation of an eternal everlasting pre-existing god.
I don't just claim; I show why, via self-contradiction, which is even beyond that an attribute can just be invented in the first place with no showing of it all. The onus shifts even more now. As anything can be merely defined, it stands nowhere to begin with, yet believers state is as truth. As this is the real "wrong", I provide an explanation that no one can yet refute, and even believers can try to get into its logic to maybe further there own hypothesis, or, to realize the futility of having some complete and even infinitely powerful entity sitting around forever, all defined and made without ever having been. Does any believer have reason for this in light of this being a scientific forum and not a magic show?
Dywyddyr,
I believe that posters who have attempted to refute through discussion, have refused to see the point I am making, because of the predominance of the view that ''God does Not exist''.
And others like yourself, have just plain refused to go into any detail, other than to cry ''wrong'', or, ''illogical''.
Okay that's a fair point, so i'll amend it so that it parallells Descartes points.
This particular engagement is a mental excercise not serious claim.
And I think you are also, devious, dis-honest, plus disruptive.
It may appear that I don't follow a chain of logic, because usually my arguments on God's existence do not fall into a category where you feel comfortable. And the reason for this, I feel, is because your refutations are geared toward the Christian understanding of God and religion, whereas my arguments aren't. I feel also that this causes frustration, why you cry ''obfuscation'', and ''liar''.
Then why not point it out at the time?
Why let it build up?
As far as i'm concerned, the argument has ceased, or in some cases, I see no
point in going further as you have not really understood my point, but are becoming frustrated.
jan.
So the other posters that also pointed out your errors haven't opened your eyes?
I believe that posters who have attempted to refute through discussion, have refused to see the point I am making, because of the predominance of the view that ''God does Not exist''.
And others like yourself, have just plain refused to go into any detail, other than to cry ''wrong'', or, ''illogical''.
Okay that's a fair point, so i'll amend it so that it parallells Descartes points.
This particular engagement is a mental excercise not serious claim.
And I think you are also, devious, dis-honest, plus disruptive.
It may appear that I don't follow a chain of logic, because usually my arguments on God's existence do not fall into a category where you feel comfortable. And the reason for this, I feel, is because your refutations are geared toward the Christian understanding of God and religion, whereas my arguments aren't. I feel also that this causes frustration, why you cry ''obfuscation'', and ''liar''.
Then why not point it out at the time?
Why let it build up?
As far as i'm concerned, the argument has ceased, or in some cases, I see no
point in going further as you have not really understood my point, but are becoming frustrated.
jan.
One more time: it is not a self-contradiction because that contradiction relies on "god" being a being just like us. Which is not the case claimed.
Blatantly wrong. As shown you are pre-supposing your conclusion as part of your argument.
Please show where I have been dishonest.
Wrong again. You do NOT follow a chain of logic.
And you're assuming again.
Also wrong. I call "liar" because you lie.
- Status