If God Is A Contradiction Then He Does Not Exist

Perfect Double Standard


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyFM0_AhIYA"]Perfect Double Standard - YouTube

 

My problem is that the premise is flawed, making it just another piece of junk.

"G-d" is an absolute; therefor he does not exist, because existence is a state of flux. Nonetheless, "G-d is true" (Deus veritas") which is what makes G-d divine or celestial.
Divine influence in "existence" is actually the pursuit of quantum physics more than philosophy or even (most revoltingly) politics.
Physics will pursue in search of the possibly where they can not pursue what they know is. If they find such a point, all the atheists will pop like that girl from "Cloverfield" that got bit and then went like a ballon.
Heh
Thus far, they have not found proof of what is beyond their grasp, so all should be safe for awhile.
(Until tbey do spin a black hole with that hadron collider and we don't have to be concerned about fukushima anymore)

 

I don't believe in that specific God and it's actions either. It is obviously based on a tribal god from more than 4000 years ago when people had more use for such gods and many other tribes, groups, etc. etc. besides the ancient jews developed similar gods and mythologies. Does that mean all belief in a god is ridicilous? No, why?

 

Pretty much all current religions have been chased really, really far back to caveman days in the uk to sumaria in the case of those current religions.
The modern version of Frazer's "Golden Bough" might be a much larger work drawing parallels from the most ancient known fragments across much more of the globe.

Until people are fully human first and well grounded in their own "faith" as it were, the idea that the religion of their forefathers is a direct descendant of the religion of their first fathers can cause them to have the aforementioned popping, so it's best to let the human seek all it can stand for it's own..
That includes physics.

 

There is a serious contradiction in thinking what is not real is the truth.

 

Not really. The human brain and potential is in no wise so blunt, blindered and limited. Metaphysical instances are actually common and as humans degenerate physically they advance cerebreotonically. Darwin applying...

 

Where does YOUR God come from? What is the God of your ancestors, your family, how where you brought up? Your god is all of a sudden just better than the Gods of everone before you then I guess, Huh? What is it then?

Put forth a description of YOUR God or STFU...

 

I don't have a specific god with human characteristics. I don't feel I have to narrow God down and put him in a personification of good myself. But if some feel otherwise or even (feel like they) need organized religion for that who am I to say they are retarded?

Why do you ask if my god is all of a sudden better? Isn't that just a generalizing assumption you simply make at first instance because you like to think every theist must think like that? Quite a dogmatic assumption What's up with THAT?

 

Why should I shut up if I do not have a satisfactory description of God's being? Yes, serious question.
Why do you think you should go on getting in others peoples face repeatedly with your opinion and I should stop getting in your face with mine?

 

When you avoid specifics all I can do is assume. Your God either originated from ancestral beliefs or it is just a fuzzy feeling you have. What I don't have to assume is the fact that you do not want to hear that there are psychological explanations for the existence of these false beliefs and feelings.

 

Why do you think I deny that by default? I don't. You did assume that.

You simply assume anyone who is in your face about the fact that you might be generalizing and basicly think about any theist like the spanish inquisition did about heathens has to be as religious as a fundementalist or at least a theist (technically I come closest to being agnostic), but a person does not have to be either to counter your flawed logic.

And what IF my vague idea of God is based on both a traditional religion based on ancestral beliefs and a fuzzy feeling I might have? Then what?

My vague conviction does not hurt other people nor do I even bother people with them when it is uncalled for. Your conviction on the other hand seems to make you agitating against any people who simply have belief in a deity. Don't you think you are the one here who exhibits behaviour similar to that despicable behaviour of the church in medieval times (which you are so eager to project on any theist while actually you are the one carrying out similar behaviour?)

 

It is not a contradiction to say I don't know relative to specific instance.
To say that the not really is real is to confuse both the meaning of not and the meaning of real.

 

How is my logic flawed? If a God contradicts his defining characteristics then this God can not possibly exist. I'm here to point out how absurd the idea of God is. If someone has a logical definition of a supreme creator, I have yet to hear it.

Of course your God is based on ancestral beliefs and feelings. Superstition predates human beings. Religion has been bred into humans for ~100 thousand generations. Selective breeding of traits including behaviors is an absolute fact of life. God the superego, and religion the coping mechanism are definitions that make sense and fit history and human nature perfectly.

Maybe religion and faith in flawed supreme beings is the only way humans can cope and survive dark age hardships (and I don't mean specifically "the Dark Ages" 600-1300BC). Religion has dominated human behavior for more than 99% of our existence. The industrial age and "easy living" has only been a flash of time and the fossil fuel boom will be gone in another flash.

How is religion going to hurt people? I've watched people die from their faith and ignorance in these "easy times". When society slips back into the dark ages, now that's when religion rules completely. How fast will we loose everything gained in the past 200 years? When religious mentality slips back into total control and burns everything and everyone that doesn't fit their collective fantasy.

 

Relaxx, relaxx, relaxx, is it just me, or isn't there a conspiracy of homeland security at Hollywood these days? Everybody should know (borrowing phraseology from L.Cohen, or is he no longer a Jew?) that what the concept of slavery is, is historically one of sensible "Property", and the rich effete in Hollywood should know that it is their envious attitudes of "empowered" sharing of wealth for the social community that need to be re-examined as much as the blame worthy ideas they are fostering.

 

It's been said before, perhaps you weren't listening.
Here it is again, all things meaningful arise in conception.

 

Humans do that. How can you say God does that if you don't believe in him, right

That sounds a bit pretentious haha. Is that why you are here? Kind of like an evangelist. See, if we remove the sides/affiliation you are coming from it appears you are doing just the same as the people you are so terribly annoyed by :biggrin:
I am not here in the first place to bother people about their religious thoughts. But since I'm here anyway I will keep on reacting to people like you who try to ridicule other peoples beliefs because they themself have no use for it. I don't care wether you are a theist or atheist, neither is wrong in my book. It's your approach though that makes you competely wrong imo.

How is your logic flawed: You take the most literally, human and unbelievable concept of god (to you) and acts if this is the only way God could exist because these are it's definitions in the bible. We both acknowledge that those definitions are not divine or something, they are written by humans like us except a few 1000 years ago.
For a non-christian you really seem hung up on the christian concept of God.
There are many more concepts and definitions (all human, yes, that's how it is, all efforts of our fellow humans, nothing more nothing less) yet you always go for the one you find most ridicilous and try to hold it against people who follow the christian (or any abrahamic) religion: at the same time ignoring the fact that most christians have a nuanced god (and world) view (it seems often more nuanced than yourself) and don't take those definitions about that angry god in the OT literally to the same extend you like to project on them at all

 

It has become an idiot "listen to me babble" thread for theorizing mystics of nowhere and stupid prosetelyzers of HF....gee, what a surprise

 

the contradiction is in what people, including how beliefs have come to be interpreted, pretend to know about god or gods. none of which any god nor god like being, is in any way obligated to resemble.

 

While I do think you made a good point in your second paragraph, your first paragraph has some false implications.

For example, you are implying that the older traditions all have the same inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the modern religions. That just isn't true. The Goddess cults for example, had a fair share of nudity, topless women, and temple prostitutes. Any one of us guys could go tell our wives, I'm going to the temple to commune with the goddess, and she would say, pick up some vegetables on the way back, and we would be at the temple, like, you know, having a good time, and like, who wouldn't want that??!!!

Ok, seriously----religion itself is a product of civilization, formed in the early planter cultures. Religions are human institutions, formed alongside all our other institutions, as we began to see the world under the perspective of a group ethic.

All religion is based on older precedents, but those precedents were shaped by the existing zeitgeist, which at the early stages of civilization, was focused primarily on fertility, and fecundity. With the rise of the group ethic, mankind began seeing the world in terms of a duality. Under the Goddess cults the world still had a lot of greys and off-color whites, but it was quickly evolving to the black and white world of today's religions.

This duality was not an issue with the older indigenous spiritualities that you still see around the world. (Though again once indigenous people began to settle down into planter cultures, you began to see the focus on an individual experience with spirit give way to a more objectivistic group experience, and a general rise of duality---for example the human sacrifices within the Ancient Central American civilizations, during periods when Quetzalcoatl's evil twin brother was in power.)

The indigenous spiritualities saw God as a multiplicity---a spirit that is present in a mulitplicity of forces---benevolent, malevolent, neutral. Taoism is a good example of such a belief system that survived the transition into a planter culture and beyond. In these belief systems it is not a case of two all-powerful opposing forces fighting against each other, there is no need to repress negative aspects of one's personality in order to be good and to achieve an unattainable ego-ideal. it is simply a matter of finding balance.

 

Religions are man made institutions----how can you expect them to have a definition of God that isn't self-serving, politically motivated to support the culture it serves and the people in power within that culture, and based on double standards that reflect a Post-Planter in-group out-group duality.

But that doesn't mean that alternative, and more logical definitions do not exist. What problems do you have with the concept of God as expressed through Taoism, or even the idea of God put forth by Aristotle, for example?