How can God not exist

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by TheRedMenace

Wrong. What do you brush your teeth with?

If you brush your teeth with a hammer you'll never have to worry about dental hygiene again

[Zetetic11235]

I remember making these same points a couple pages back, it seems like we haven't gone anywhere!

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Then you limit god, for by limiting the possibilities in his creation you limit his ability to create. It is implicitly so. i suggest you take after protoman as I have seen you commenting on his very similar thread, and realize how nonsensical it is to try to prove and define god by using somthing(logic in this case) which by definition is god's creation and since god is omnipotent he is not bound by it lest he be bound at all and thus limited. .

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

It seems to me absurd and bizzarely arrogant to define somthing as beyond you and then conjecture upon its nature as though it were not. But I suppose that is just me, as you have so clearly pointed out by example that you are immune such contradictions.

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

Then Just like a cup can't be defined by a handle, if all that can be considered is the handle, you cannot arrive to a description of the cup.

Speaking of god not deing definable by a part of itself,e.g. logic.

That was from a post way back on page 6 and now we are here again!!

[TheRedMenace]

Originally Posted by Zetetic11235

I remember making these same points a couple pages back, it seems like we haven't gone anywhere!







Speaking of god not deing definable by a part of itself,e.g. logic.

That was from a post way back on page 6 and now we are here again!!

Oops. I apologize. I was foolish in not looking back at all the posts. Well your my hero is all I got to say. Looking back those posts, very well articulated. Better said than mine.

[Zetetic11235]

Hero eh? Thanks for the kind words, however I simply want to move the topic along to new territory! If we keep chatting in circles, we get to spinning around, we get dizzy and forget what direction we were going in the first place! And that is simply not . Its just silly.

I like the idea of viewing attempts at logical verification of god as sort of koans. It seems to me though, that sutras or meditations are a more direct parellel to these proofs. The hindu texts are very logically and philosophically dense.

[iMaximilian]

The whole "there is no answer, so the answer must be God" really doesn't hold water.

[iconoclast]

The logic of first cause is false because cause and effect is shown to be inapplicable under certain circumstances with reference to quantum phenomena that routinely obviate cause and effect.

Cause and effect applies to the existing classical scale universe - where there is energy, matter and a temopral sequence of events.

Thus, the primordial universe - crushed into a quantum singulalrity is exempt on two counts - firstly, that it is on quantum scale, and secondly, there is no matter, energy or time - and thus no cause and effect.

[Wouldukindly]

Ok I probably haven't read all the post on this God argument(a thank you to all those who believe that you didn't go into fundamentalist 'you'll all burn in hell' rant like i've seen all to many times) but have we even defined what God were are arguing about? Are we arguing the Christian God, or God with various rules and laws or just some entity that created the universe with no moral objective for humans?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Master Pangloss

First of all, I don't think the Metaphysics of Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. Secondly, what is this "loop" nonsense? The entire point of "rational" inquiry is to arrive at a proof, not an analogy. It makes no sense to claim that we can "rationalize" about something, while also admitting that a proof is ultimately unreachable. We might as well jump in a car and drive to nowhere.

There is a lot that we can think about, and we can make reasonable conjectures about, without being able to prove what we think. For example, there are a number of cosmological theories. The steady state theory; the Big Bang theory. And, at this time, the latter seems to be the best explanation for the origin of the universe. However, no one has proved it is true, and it may never be proved at all. That doesn't mean that we cannot think reasonably about it. We do.

[iconoclast]

That's right - let's all be reasoanble about God - except for those who believe that there's a ghost on high who will burn you forever in a firey pit if you dare doubt his existence. Let's be unreasoable about religion - let's say that anyone who goes to church is a racist child molester. It's unreasonable - but so what?

[No0ne]

1.---1.All thought's that I can think.
-----2.All thought's that I cannot think.

2.---1.All that I can see.
-----2.All that I cannot see.

3.---1.All thing's that I can feel.
-----2.All thing's that I cannot feel.

4.---1.All thing's that I can smell.
-----2.All thing's that I cannot smell.

5.---1.All thing' that I can hear.
-----2.All thing's that I cannot hear.

6.---1.All thing's that I can tase.
-----2.All thing's that I cannot taste.

7.---1.All that is my self.
-----2.All that is not my self.

For this is a short list of what I have defined my "god" as, which are the main 7 section's of one's self.(presented as a duality)

Yet...

8.---1.All thing's and thought's I can define with my mind.
-----2.All thing's and thought's I cannot define with my mind.

So for my "god" can, and cannot be defined, for that is the duality of my my "god's" existence...for I need no book to show me what my "god" is and is not, for one only need's to look at one's self and the self around one's self, for that is the true book that has defined what my "god" is and what my "god" is not.

The last duality...that bind's alll other duality's that portray what my "god" is and what my "god" is not.

9.---1.All that is nothingness.
-----2.All that is not nothingness.
____________________________________________
For man is it's consciousness.
For what is not man is it's sub-consciousness.

For this is what I have defined and not defined my "god" as.

A "god" that has not been made know to me by a book made by the hand's of man.

But, from the very fact of my existence, has such been made.