GENIUS FORUMS

nt

Hades needs to think about the issue a bit more. At the moment, he doesn't really appreciate the significance of what is being said on this thread. He doesn't realize that it does away with God completely.

Another way to attack the issue is to think about the universality of cause and effect. Whatever exists in the Totality is necessarily causal in nature, including any Gods which happen to exist. Indeed, from the perspective of cause and effect, there are no boundaries between things. There is only a vast causal sea, in which all things are dissolved.

If a God exists, then he too dissolves into the causal sea. He is just like everything else in that regard - utterly empty of existence and utterly insignificant from the philosophic perspective.

-

I wrote this earlier, but didn't post it because Kevin snuck in and dealt with this particular point before me. But it might be worth posting anyway.

-

Hades wrote:

If the Christian God exists then faith is more important, because your faith will determine your future. And the only way to even begin to 'reach perfection' would be to worship him somehow..

Two things:

Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that, at root, the question of the Christian God's existence is empirical in nature, and thus falls into the realm of possible hallucinations. In other words, even if we should see him directly before us, we have no way of determining that he isn't an hallucination.

This alone makes him an irrelevancy. The spiritual path to wisdom is traversed by going from one 100% certainty to the next until the ultimate enlightenment is reached. It does not deal in empirical uncertainties. It does not have a use for speculative entities.

Secondly, the finite nature of the Christian God also makes him an irrelevancy. The reason why the Christian God will always be limited and finite, no matter how he is conceived, is because he will always fall short of constituting the totality of all there is.

By his very nature, the Christian God is not "everything". He is less than "everything", just as we are less than "everything". He is finite, like we are.

Thus, you or I worshipping such an entitiy would be akin to a simulated entity in a computer program worshipping the snotty-nosed programmer who created the program. Such an act is useless if the purpose is to comprehend the nature of Reality itself.

If the simulated entity wants to become enlightened, he needs to turn his back on the programmer and focus instead on understanding his infinite nature. This infinite nature embraces not only the simulated world in which he exists, but also the programmer and his world, along with everything else that exists.

In other words, if he wants to become enlightened, he has to go beyond his God utterly.

-

hades wrote:Those who believed in the alien's son's death and worshipped him were sent into another virtual reality that consisted of pleasure, truth, peace and harmony, very similar to the aliens reality.

Those who did not worship and have faith were sent to a different virtual reality, one where you were clinically insane, unable to reason and think straight, there existed excessive pain, noise, anger, and hallucinations and suffering beyond measure.

He can keep you alive forever in which ever reality you end up in.

Maybe irrelevant to this thread, but you did an excellent job here of spelling out exactly why the Christian God is a total asshole.

In the end ,the only attribute I could give to God is equity.

How do you justify disbelief in the classical notions of God...as an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolant personal conscious being who transcends time/space and created the universe....etc

What makes you think that classical-God doesn't exist. I'm more interested in logical proofs than personal experiences, opinions and lack of evidence arguments.

Belief in God has never been justified. I wonder if this counts as a "lack of evidence argument", because there certainly is a huge lack of evidence for God? Heh. I challenge you, or anyone who subscribes to classical-god-theory, to offer anything stronger than the usual fare of wishful thinking, pop psychology, and wild metaphysical speculation in support of his or her favourite deity.

No one in this thread believes in a classical God, so you can relax.

hades wrote:
I'll get to the point.

How do you justify disbelief in the classical notions of God...as an all-knowing, all-powerful, benevolant personal conscious being who transcends time/space and created the universe....etc

ksolway wrote:
If "universe" is defined to be everything, then it is not logically possible for it to have been created - since there is nothing other than itself.

That should be proof enough. .

The above proposition is true, but it is not proof. To demonstrate this, take the converse of the above proposition (not the same as the denial proposition), i.e.

If "universe" is not defined to be everything, then it is logically possible for it to have been created - since there could be something other than itself.

This proposition is also true, but it does not prove that the universe was created. All both propositions do is highlight that there is a material condition between the definition of the universe and whether or not it is logically possible for it to have been created.

A more balanced (slightly less loaded) proposition would be to say "The nature of the universe determines whether it is logically possible for it to have been created". This is an uninformative tautology that tells us nothing about whether it is logically possible for the universe to have been created.

"Everything" is one of many definitions of "universe". Others include "all matter and energy", "anywhere we could reach, given the ability to travel infinitely fast through space" etc. Interestingly I have also heard god defined as everything.

ksolway: But it is also not logically possible for a conscious being to be all-knowing, since there are infinite things happening in the universe, and it wouldn't be possible to have a mind large enough to know them all.

From this I understand the following argument is being expressed:

1) there are infinite things happening in the universe
2) it would not be possible to have a mind large enough to know them all.
3) [conclusion] it is not logically possible for a conscious being to be all-knowing

The second premise is problematic. My understanding is that you are referring to god as classically defined (all the omnis etc), so premise 2 (though you have not expressed it fully, and for good reason) is stating that "it would not be possible [for an omnipotent being] to have a mind large enough to know them all." This is the equivalent of (P ^ ¬P), i.e. it is a contradiction. Premise 2 is the lynch pin of the argument. The truth of this premise determines the truth of the conclusion, the premise is false, therefore the argument is false. I would express this argument like this:

1) There are an infinite number of things happening in the universe.
2) To be all-knowing, a mind would have to be capable of knowing an infinite number of things.
3) It is possible for an omnipotent being (conscious or otherwise) to have a mind capable of knowing an infinite number of things.
4) It is logically possible for a being (conscious or otherwise) to be all-knowing.

ksolway: The only thing large enough to contain that amount of information is Nature itself - the Totality. And it is not conscious, since there is nothing for it to be conscious of, since it is everything.

The classically defined god is by definition greater than nature i.e. supernatural. As it is this God that is being referred to here, the proposition "The only thing large enough to contain that amount of information is Nature itself", is false.

In all honesty applying "consciousness" to god does not really sit comfortably with me, but that is a differnt matter.

hi ziggy ,

Before yak around, how do you know all those things you say ? you studied? what is study ? copy someone belief?.

Don't tell it came from your brain. You are your surroundings. You are belief bag.

Stop babbling like david quinn

Ask question , Never agree or disagree.
peace
unknown

ziggysdaydream wrote:

ksolway wrote:
If "universe" is defined to be everything, then it is not logically possible for it to have been created - since there is nothing other than itself.

That should be proof enough. .

The above proposition is true, but it is not proof.

Yes, it is, given the definition of universe.

A thing can only be created by that which is other than itself. But if there is nothing other than itself, it cannot be created.

"Everything" is one of many definitions of "universe".

There are as many definitions as you care to make up. But I have settled on this particular one in this context. It seems silly to be to define the Universe to be some small part of the All - especially since the very word Uni-verse implies there is only one of it.

My understanding is that you are referring to god as classically defined

God as classically defined is nonsensical, like a "square circle", so we can only ignore it.

In the argument I presented above, I concentrated on one commonly defined quality of God - that he is conscious - and reached the necessary conclusion that he cannot therefore know everything.

3) It is possible for an omnipotent being (conscious or otherwise) to have a mind capable of knowing an infinite number of things.

No, the fact that he is conscious means that there exist things other than himself. That is what "conscious" means. Since there are things other than himself, he is limited, and therefore cannot know everything.

The classically defined god is by definition greater than nature

This too is a nonsense definition. Since Nature is everything, there can be nothing other than Nature, so there can't be anything greater than it. Once again, it would be silly to define existing things as being outside of and independent of Nature. It would be like saying: "Everything on my tabletop is Nature, and everything else is outside of Nature". It is senseless.

In all honesty applying "consciousness" to god does not really sit comfortably with me, but that is a different matter.

Well, judging by the extreme stupidity and evilness of the God worshipped by Christians, he cannot be terribly conscious.

What exactly is the reason for thinking that Classical God is a square-circle ?

Where is the fundamental contradiction of properties?

hades wrote:What exactly is the reason for thinking that Classical God is a square-circle ?

Where is the fundamental contradiction of properties?

He is supposed to be conscious, but he is also supposed to be all-knowing. That is a contradiction for the reasons I have explained.

He is supposed to be all-good, and yet he behaves like the most evil person imaginable.

Etc, etc. You could come up with dozens of such contradictions if you tried.

ksolway wrote:
He is supposed to be conscious, but he is also supposed to be all-knowing. That is a contradiction for the reasons I have explained.

Well knowing implies consciousness....all knowing would obviously imply being..conscious.
What is the contradiction?

He is supposed to be all-good, and yet he behaves like the most evil person imaginable.

When have you observed his behaviour?

Etc, etc. You could come up with dozens of such contradictions if you tried.

I am curious about your reasoning.

hades wrote:

ksolway wrote: He is supposed to be conscious, but he is also supposed to be all-knowing. That is a contradiction for the reasons I have explained.

Well knowing implies consciousness....all knowing would obviously imply being..conscious.

What is the contradiction?

You can't be conscious of all things, for the reason I explained. Thus a conscious being can't be all-knowing.

He is supposed to be all-good, and yet he behaves like the most evil person imaginable.

When have you observed his behaviour?

One can't observe the behaviour of a non-existent thing.

But if the Christian God did exist, then one can reason what his behaviour must be - ie, evil.

ksolway wrote:
Well knowing implies consciousness....all knowing would obviously imply being..conscious.

What is the contradiction?

You can't be conscious of all things, for the reason I explained. Thus a conscious being can't be all-knowing.

Your reasoning was flawed. You presumed that it can't be all-knowing because...the mind can't be that 'big' (lol)?
What exactly can't he be conscious of? By definition he is conscious of all-things....

what are the things that contradict his omniscience? hmmm?

The mind isn't 'big enough' isn't convincing, are you convinced?

One can't observe the behaviour of a non-existent thing.

But if the Christian God did exist, then one can reason what his behaviour must be - ie, evil.

The issue is wether he exits or not, you are just assuming he doesn't exist. YOu haven't showed the square-circle yet...


And I'm not just talking about the bible interpretation of God, but just classical all-knowing, all-powerful conscious being.

Where is the square-circle part? What is the fundamental contradiction of properties...

Consciousness, by its very nature, automatically creates gaps and blind spots.

To be conscious is to be conscious of appearances. And to be conscious of appearances is to be unconscious of whatever does not constitute these appearances. So it is intrinsically impossible for a conscious being, however large, to be conscious of all things.

It is similar to what Chaos Theory describes when it comes to making predictions. In order to make quantifiable predictions concerning the future, one has to perform quantifiable measurements in the present. However, it is impossible to measure a thing to an infinite degree. One can only measure a thing to a certain number of decimal points.

This means that an error is immediately created by an act of measurement. A measurement is always an approximation. It can never be 100% precise. This is why it is almost impossible to predict, say, what the weather will be doing in 10 days time, no matter how many measurements we take or how meticulously we take them. The tiny errors in each measurement always multiply exponentially in the simulation models.

-

Your reasoning was flawed. You presumed that it can't be all-knowing because...the mind can't be that 'big' (lol)?

What exactly can't he be conscious of? By definition he is conscious of all-things....

Since "all things" are infinite in number, a conscious mind would have to know infinite things. But since it is conscious there are necessarily things which are other than itself - therefore a conscious mind is necessarily limited. Being limited it cannot encompass knowledge of an infinite number of things.

The mind isn't 'big enough' isn't convincing, are you convinced?

Yes.

The issue is wether he exits or not, you are just assuming he doesn't exist. YOu haven't showed the square-circle yet...

I conclude that God must be impossible, based on the definition of God given by Christians.

Where is the square-circle part? What is the fundamental contradiction of properties...

I've already discussed them, but for some reason you can't see it. For example, God is defined to be all-good. But his described behaviour, in the Bible, is clearly evil (eg, the killing and torture of innocent people, etc). So this God must be both all-good and evil and the same time.

Classical God?

What's that?

I am trying to picture Classical God. Do you mean God of the Bible? Do you mean God of the Penecostal Holiness? God of the Mormans? God of the Muslims? Jew God? Zeus?

Define, please, Classical God.

I mean, damn.

No need to reply to this post directly. You are being bombarded, I realize.

Classical God like Classic Coke or Classic Barbie?

What's God?

Are you Christian?

Faizi

Logical proof of Classic God?

You are in want of geometry.

Faizi

MKFaizi wrote:Classical God?

What's that?

I am trying to picture Classical God. Do you mean God of the Bible? Do you mean God of the Penecostal Holiness? God of the Mormans? God of the Muslims? Jew God? Zeus?

Define, please, Classical God.

I mean, damn.

No need to reply to this post directly. You are being bombarded, I realize.

Classical God like Classic Coke or Classic Barbie?

What's God?

Are you Christian?

Faizi

The monotheistic God of judaism, islam, christianity (sort of)

The conscious being who judges the universe and mankind...
You know..classical God

A: Perfect G: Personal
B: Immutable H: Creator
C: Transcendent I: All-Loving
D: Immaterial J: All-Just
E: All-Knowing K: All-Merciful
F: All-Powerful

etc

Classical God? What's that?

To me it means any god that is believed to be the creator or cause of the universe.

Jamesh wrote:Classical God? What's that?

To me it means any god that is believed to be the creator or cause of the universe.

As far as I'm concerned there's a contradiction right there. Since I define the universe is everything, there's no room for a creator. And I think it would be silly to exclude things from the universe.

Well my reasons for disregarding such a god are slightly different, but close. I just know that existence-of-some-sort and time logically must have existed because any entity could exist in any form, therefore a creator god cannot be an original cause.

Heres a reason I like to use, its more of an internal problem with Omniscience, All-knowingness....

its an impossible notion, its self contradictory

one thing an all-knowing god can't know is what it is like to learn. Because there is nothing to learn if you know everything.

So an all-knowing being can't know what it is like to learn because all-knowing presupposes you know everything and nothing is learnable.

SO because he is all-knowing he can't be all-knowing.

ALso he can't be all-powerful, because he can't perform the act of learning, ever.

DHodges answered this worn out question quite elequantly i think. Good to recognise inteligence :P
There has been enough time wasted on the "god" how about prooving or disprooving the pink elephant that god has on its leash, who is "semi" omniescient. that can't be? you cant be "semi" omniescient and thats why there is no pink elephant?
Hopefully this is last time i waste effort in answering or thinking about this stupid question.