How can God not exist

@Aedes,

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.

3 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

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.

1 Reply

@Master Pangloss,

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.

1 Reply

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

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.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

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'.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

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.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

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.

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

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.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

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.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

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.

Quote "universe exists as an effect, therefore it must have a cause"

Somthingness, is create from nothingness.

So the cause is nothingness, for without nothingness, somthingness could not exist.

"nothingness" has no chararistic's, function's, physical form, mental form, ect. It is the absolute oppisite of somthingness, therefore it cannot be defined in any way shape or form, or it would be created in a mental form, therefore it would no longer be absolute oppisite of somthingness.

So nothingness dose not exist within are existance for that very fact of, it dose not have a physical, mental form, or any physical or mental chararictic's or function's with anything els in any way shape or form within are existance.

So nothingness is still a "thing" but it's a "thing" that's out side our box.

It seem's like "nothingness" is one of the key factor's in the cause that has made the effect of "somthingness".

(This seem's why within the "bible" it was spoken that "god" had made light from nothing) Or how I would put it, "God" had made somthingness from nothingness, but without nothingness, somthingness would not have an absolute oppisite within infinity to coinside with.

(also the cause of a "god" existing would be the the "god" saying it exist's therefore it would exist)

But are existance was caused by "nothingness" existing, and the dualism system of infinit coinsiding absolute and non-absolute oppisite's.

Hence, there are meany thing's that have a hand in the effect we call are universe.

But even tho people where told the answer, it most likly would never quelch there thirst for the answer...

It is cause it is, cause I say it is, therefore it exist's as is.

(also finding the answer would never solve all are physical problem's we face within this existance...cause the answer only exist's in mental form, lacking all physical form proof)

1 Reply

@No0ne,

To say the universe is an effect is viable; to say that the cause is not also an effect is not.

Nothingness crosses that metaphysical boundry I mentioned. It is not of us, and we cannot concieve of it entirely, only fool ourselfs into thinking that we have. I cannot envision a circumstance where I do not exist, nor can I envision a circumstance where somthing which does exist does not, for all which does exist ultimately has an effect on all elee which exists. I further cannot envision any scenario where somthing which does not exist does for I can only imagine what does exist, I can mentally rearrange my impressions of reality to accomodate an approximation of somthing which is not the physical case(I say approximation because that is what a mental model is, it is physical in and of itself).

1 Reply

@Zetetic11235,

Zetetic11235 wrote:

To say the universe is an effect is viable; to say that the cause is not also an effect is not.

Nothingness crosses that metaphysical boundry I mentioned. It is not of us, and we cannot concieve of it entirely, only fool ourselfs into thinking that we have. I cannot envision a circumstance where I do not exist, nor can I envision a circumstance where somthing which does exist does not, for all which does exist ultimately has an effect on all elee which exists. I further cannot envision any scenario where somthing which does not exist does for I can only imagine what does exist, I can mentally rearrange my impressions of reality to accomodate an approximation of somthing which is not the physical case(I say approximation because that is what a mental model is, it is physical in and of itself).

Yet can be concieved as an absolute oppisite of somthing we can entirely concieve. It's Also why it cant be entirely concieved.

I can see
I cant see

I can hear
I cant hear

I can exist
I cant exist

I can concieve
I cant concieve

Just a few example's the list is endless...only bound by how much time I have to spend toward's making that list

I can concieve from one point of view
I cant concieve from one point of view

I can preceive it from one point of view
I cant preveive it from one point of view

Both point's of view are not the same, there oppsite point's of view, that's why in one way you can, and in one way you cant.

There are some that are very tricky oppisite's that when thought of you just hit a :brickwall:

1 Reply

@No0ne,

No0ne wrote:

Yet can be concieved as an absolute oppisite of somthing we can entirely concieve. It's Also why it cant be entirely concieved.

No0ne wrote:

I can see
I cant see

I can hear
I cant hear

I can exist
I cant exist

I can concieve
I cant concieve

Is one not being able to see the opposite of one being able to see? The lack of sight can bring about a new aspect of perception and reality that is not reversable by giving sight. Can you concieve of not concieving? There is no method of induction/intution for this, it is not within human experience, and thus only the denotation is opposite, the semantics of the two statements are 'I can concieve' valid, but trivial, "I can't concieve' not verifiable by expericence. When one says that they cannot concieve of somthing, it is really that they do not understand it, the non conception of somthing is only valid as a string of words, not tied to anything but through syntax. The same of existence.
Just a few example's the list is endless...only bound by how much time I have to spend toward's making that list

No0ne wrote:

I can concieve from one point of view
I cant concieve from one point of view

I can preceive it from one point of view
I cant preveive it from one point of view

Both point's of view are not the same, there oppsite point's of view, that's why in one way you can, and in one way you cant.

But are two points of view ever treuly opposite? Think about it.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

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.

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.

2 Replies

@Master Pangloss,

:offtopic:I'm making a new thread to talk about such philosophical theorie's of nature made oppisite's

(I'm just portraying a point of view of the existance that led's to the thought of such concept's, dosnt mean they are true or not true, I'm all neutral...)

0 Replies

@No0ne,

Master Pangloss -- that is the best critique of the cosmological argument I've ever read. Thank you.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

That isn't fair, lol. :ashamed:

In Yes metaphysics of metaphysics is useless:whistling:, but the loop is not an analogy, there just isn't a word for what I can describe; I mean, can't you understand what is meant by loop? What kind of cosmological argument would you rather discuss.

How about olber's paradox.:a-ok:

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

I do believe in God but I find using arguments like time is finite or there was a beginning therefore there must be a God to create that or there has to be a being eternal as well as using Infinite Regress to disprove God to be obsolete arguments because of one truth I have. The limitation of man is their inability to comprehend infinity or nothingness. Therefore I find using arguments involving incomprehensible tools obsolete.

1 Reply

@TheRedMenace,

TheRedMenace wrote:

The limitation of man is their inability to comprehend infinity or nothingness.

And hence an argument for God's existence is, in the end, equivalent to the argument against it. The meaningfulness of both positive and negative assertions about God melt away in the face of an infinitude we can't comprehend.

1 Reply

How can God not exist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know