How can God not exist

[Holiday20310401]

It's either a loop; or infinitely backwards and forwards has infinite gradients. The only way to solve beyond what we have empirical perception of is to rationalize in this case what happened to cause the beginning of the forces of nature.

Perhaps dimension started the forces of nature. I can see forces of nature being conditional to the actual dimensions of the cosmos. And does dimension require a beginning to the mind, or does it just require something outside the box of dimension itself, or does dimension imply the box being sort of inversed upon itself, (I can't think of a better way of putting it). It would imply no need for an outside the box, simply that dimension creates itself, nearly like its underlying "ly" a loop.

[Master Pangloss]

This is simple. This is the same old, hundred-times refuted cosmological argument. It opperates under the assumptions of cause and effect - the universe exists as an effect, therefore it must have a cause, in this case God. There are three, that's right, three logical fallacies in this argument. It's an argument from ignorance, it's circular, and it begs the question. It's an argument from ignorance in that it follows this line of reasoning: "I see this phenomenon (the universe). I cannot understand this phenomenon save for this explination (God). Therefore, this must be it's explination." The existence of the universe or time does not automatically mean that God did it. It may simply be the case that something else of which we unaware may be responsible for it. We may have an idea of God, but to assume that it must be God is a huge logical leap. It would be just as demonstrable, on purely logical level, for me to say that aliens did it.

It begs the question in that I may ask, "If God created the universe, who created God?" Aristotle tried to solve this dilemma by suggesting that God was "unmovable," that God is his own cause, which is pure caprice. This is mere speculation, entirely unfounded, and utterly unarguable. At this point we're talking about the metaphysics of metaphysics. Beyond here it just turns into a ridiculous science fiction novel. But even if you could make that logical leap, you're still running in circles. Suggesting that God is his own cause is equivalent to saying "God exists, because God exists," which is absurd.

Arguments against God's existence are bloated with fallacies as well.

Bottom line people - The idea of God is not a rational concept. It is a religious, mystical concept. It does not fall into the rational category. Therefore, it cannot be proven or disproven using rational means. Rather, it cannot be proven or disproven at all. Trust me, you won't "figure it out." Put your mind to better use, believe what you want, and live your life the best you can. See. That wasn't so hard.

[Holiday20310401]

I bet there is a rationalistic way of figuring it out., if it is a loop, then you could relate anything to anything else, so an analogy would be relevant for rational reasons for the metaphysics of metaphysics. The only problem is that there is no proofs in speculation, but that doesn't mean we can't rationalize.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by nameless

A 'definition/context' is both 'positive' attributes AND 'negative' attributes; 'positive' meaning 'is this', 'is that' inherent with 'is not this', 'is not that' (negatory). The simple 'is not' is not a definition in itself.
You are engaging in intellectual sophistic dishonesty.

I'm a little lost.

You are saying that his statement can be restated as "There is a God that is undefinable and is not anything that can be defined", as I believe that covers both positive and negative attributes contained by said statement. This definition states the same thing twice, and the "simple 'is not' is sufficient for a definition, as the "is" serves only to provide redundancy.

No matter how you slice it, there is self-destruction in any statement that says "God possesses the qualities of not being able to be assigned qualities."

It is also quite plain that it is a ploy on his part as well, as he has been describing the nature of God all discussion long, but when asked a question that gets down to the root of his argument, all of a sudden God is undefinable.

[Zetetic11235]

Once again, I feel as though I must point out that a description of god is nonsense by default as it draws a limit to god. This cannot be so for god draws a limit to man implicitly. The entire topic of discussion is nonsense, to talk of god we must define god, to define god we must limit god, to limit god we must be beyond god implicitly as we cannot define human limits entirely, only be aware silently of them.

To consider human limits is nonsense as human limits are by definition not considerable as they are beyond the limit of consideration implictly; as such we fail to define ourselfes entirely in any sense since we cannot draw upon ourselfs any definite and total limit, and thus fail to define god by any stretch.

To further elucidate my above assertion, it seems necessary that I explain why it is so that a definition is a limit implicitly. In order that a thing be shown to be unique, it must be shown that all which constitutes it, that is, all possible forms and qualitative interations, are unique in their totality and thus no other object shall be substitute in every case lest it change the form of the circumstance or indeed be the object itself. In order for the afformentioned criteria to be met, a limit must be drawn between the object and everything else known as expressed in language. The limit can only exist in terms of the other language objects and thus speaking of is beyond language is neither true nor false as it is beyond the limit of language.

This limit of language is true but regrettable as no metaphysical consideration is valid under it, since objects such as god are by definition beyond such limits. The previous sentence was nonsense, however, it was also illusrative. I believe that the jews likely realized this upon the inception of the term Yhwh, however it was lost in time. It is difficult to draw the limit to language and it mostly can only be illustrated by example, almost a 'you'll know it when you see it'.

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah so we should assume that when defining our own version of God that we choose to believe in (if one chooses to believe in God), it is best to limit God, and perhaps through the basis of paralleling one's own's morals, experiences, intuition, logic, emotion, etc.

[Zetetic11235]

Isn't that just self justification, projection of your ideals onto a model by which you derive your ideals? I think we cannot know god and we cannot fully know ourselfs in that we cannot see ourselfs as a whole,i.e. we cannot step beyond our limitations such that we can see the line which limits us from everything else and thus we can only hit walls as they come rather than steer away from the danger lest we give up on the journey altogether and become stagnant in our ways.

Make your own morals if you will, but do not call them anything other than your own and give to them no authority but your own or you will be a liar to your self and others who are affected by your actions. You will defer responsibility and loose center.

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah I know eh? My statements kinda weak, so is any that try to see what God is about. Its best to know that it doesn't exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Zetetic11235]

Its best to understand that it is unknowable and incomprehenisble. Hence the original form Yhwh, a name which is not speakable, a god which is unknowable. Places such as heaven and hell, unknowable by us, concepts such as god silently understood by example. To speak of god as though we understand is flawed inhierently by the nature of the concept, to speak of limits to humanity is flawed by the nature of the concept, we must consider what is empirically valid, and silently acknowledge the presence of our limits when they reveal themselfs by example. It is a virtue to see what the limits of your work are and to not violate them but only try to work around them. I do not mean ability, but rather the understanding of what you are working with to the extent that you can see what can be done and what is invalid.

You cannot know what is beyond understanding. Any statement made about what is beyond us is nonsense, as in fact certain facets of ourselfs are beyond access.

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

It's either a loop; or infinitely backwards and forwards has infinite gradients. The only way to solve beyond what we have empirical perception of is to rationalize in this case what happened to cause the beginning of the forces of nature.

Perhaps dimension started the forces of nature. I can see forces of nature being conditional to the actual dimensions of the cosmos. And does dimension require a beginning to the mind, or does it just require something outside the box of dimension itself, or does dimension imply the box being sort of inversed upon itself, (I can't think of a better way of putting it). It would imply no need for an outside the box, simply that dimension creates itself, nearly like its underlying "ly" a loop.

The cause of the effect "somthingness" is "nothingness"

It's a dualism relationship in an infinitly looping system.