If God Is A Contradiction Then He Does Not Exist

What is your example of someone not invoking their good? I haven't seen it yet and you can't provide one without claiming good for yourself. Hitler thought it was good to kill jews or people in general evidently as he invested his entire life savings in the project taking even his own life in the end. You have denied him nothing but do deny the common cause of self.

Your invocation is the only arbiter of good for you. God is that which we invoke ergo only god is good.

If you suggest a commercial collaboration I would be amenable on the chance of providing opportunity to meet. That takes care tax number. There I might see the blood rising in your cheeks and that would take care of the birth certificate. Otherwise just more propaganda.

Our saving grace then is that you find me funny. Forget me so soon?

 

thedope:

You here admit ones good is not everyones, and yet god is? You are in two minds for your equation 'god alone is good'. Not everyones good is what they think it is. If russian roulette is good for someone, tell me who, or why you think so! :-D

Not true, the invocation of others factors into our overall arbitration. God is not all we invoke, and good is not god alone. You are hung up on the word.

You say I am stingy with myself. If you want a piece of me, I may have to clean your clock after all! :-D

I tend to forget all who expect my expression to fit their own, and remember to watch my back. You're a special case. I just have to watch you don't spill your drink on me. :-D

 

What is good?
Does it matter that people are confused. Those who play russian roulette are playing a game. Is playing games good?

To the extent you allow. Your verdict is final until you change your mind.

Could it be conceivable that the working definition of god is a verb. You are talking about no un.

Clock cleaning does no good unless I can see it.

It is not expectation on my part but recognition. I may be a special case to you but I show up regardless.

 

I think so, so long as we give ourselves every chance of evaluating them 'afterwards'. lol
Good's what makes us better.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but it is to the extent we all allow.
My verdict is not guilty.

You are definitely godding up the place if that's what you mean. lol Should you want to implicate me in the process, you'll have a hard time of it. Any who want us most toothful of atheists to be their attack dogs will have to god off. :-D

Regardless, if you want a piece of me, and try to take it, your good will only be considered after said cleaning. :-D

If my expression fitted yours, I'd be you. When I earlier spoke of equals, I shouldn't have, for there are none. The universe remains odd to us, but that's no problem at all if we're open to infinity. :-D




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izXSkkwwfzk"]Heather B The Game Don't Stop - YouTube

 

What's that?

And if the verdict of all others is guilty does that change your mind?

No I implicated you without difficulty and your pack has long dispersed.

You can't avoid the invocation of yours. Whatever you allow son.

It's part of being the odds and ends that are there whether you are open to it or not.

 

If we take the word "universe" to mean both space and time, and affirm that time itself had a beginning, then time only exists provided that the statement "God exists and the universe exists" is true, and time does not exist provided that the statement "God exists and the universe does not exist" is true.

And if time does not exist, provided that the statement "God exists and the universe does not exist" is true, then there is no time at which that statement is true. But if that is the case, then must we not conclude that each of these statements cannot be true at different times, and so that to maintain that God existed at a time before the universe existed is self-contradictory? Would it not also lead to the conclusion that if God is the cause of the universe, the universe must co-exist eternally with Him and therefore has no beginning? Or would that only lead one to the bizarre but not necessarily self-contradictory conclusion that the universe had a beginning and yet there was no time at which the universe did not exist?

to be fair I didn't come up with this- but it brings up some cool debates

 

In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe.

In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field.

In classical mechanics time is treated as a constant velocity.

 

Laughter. My love will have to watch me play this out! :-D

No, and so you see now my invocation is not the only arbiter of good for me? lol

What pack? No, you only think you've implied god exists for me. You've definitely lied that it does though! :-D

Just as well it's a good one then eh? Come one come all!

Ends? :-D

 

Ahh...I thought you said good was what it was.

The opposite is true Dejavu, if everyone else's verdict is guilty and that doesn't change your mind then you are not waiting on any kind of critical mass.

The atheistic.

Events in history

 

I did. And it is. What's it to you?

No, that would depend on who was being found guilty in your little hypothetical. lol

You mean everyone here then? lol

And the odds? :-D

 

Laughter is the congruence of yes and no. I was pointing out that now you say good is something specific like laughter rather than the catch all phrase good is what is. I say good is what you call upon for thyne is your kingdom and your power and your glory, definitely.

Only if you confess.

I'm supporting you now.

Are

 

no. we choose to avoid causing harm, because if we have half a brain, even if in isn't consciously obvious, our subconsious knows we are better off doing so. this does not involve nor require invoking anything. we do not need a boogie man to want to avoid causing harm. and we really don't need the distraction of 'belief' from learning how to actually avoid doing so.

the existence or non existence of one or more gods, is entirely seperate, up to them, and beyone our knowing.

 

Too true. I posted the following on another forum:

One's morality comes from one's self.

Allow me to elaborate on that.

Most normal people understand what it means to be hurt physically and/or emotionally. We tend to not like to be hurt.

Therefore, we tend to treat others the same way that we would like to be treated. We do not want to be hurt, and thus we do not hurt others.

That is morality. No god required.

 

Tell that to Kitty Genovese. For a less simplistic view, see :

Cialdini, Robert B. Empathy-Based Helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987

Cialdini, Robert B. Reinterpreting the Empathy-Altruism Relationship: When One into One Equals Oneness. Arizona State University. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997. Vol. 73. No 3.1997

http://niu.edu/user/tj0bjs1/papers/mlncbs02.pdf

That research suggests that altruism is modified by a sense of distance or closeness to the victim. Historically, one of the contributions of world religions like Christianity and Islam was to expand the scope of others for which we feel empathy. See Wright, The Evolution of God. "Cultural evolution leads more and more peole to play non-zero-sum games at greater and greater distances."

 

Science does leave open the possibility that there were other universes that may have existed before the big bang that created our universe, and even if we say that time began with the big bang, that is only 'our' time within our universe.

Or as the comedian whose name I cannot think of right now, said in his recent opening monologue on Saturday Night Live (and I paraphrase):

People are always confused over which came first the chicken or the egg. Well I will answer that for you right now. Everyone knows that chickens come from eggs, and you cannot have a chicken if it didn't come from an egg, so of course, the egg came first. Problem solved.

Now someone might ask, 'well where did the egg come from?' Well, from another chicken, but that doesn't matter.

 

In order to fix position in space and time,
the third coordinate is conception

 

I am not talking about belief. And your invocation of, "causing no harm," is god to you as per the definition I have put forward which is the definition based on our common experience, that is as a verb not a noun. There is no end to the argument is there a noun god, however we find reasonable agreement as I have pointed out many times as you say, our subconscious knows we are better off doing so, in the form of, we are naturally devoted to our own invocation of good. For everyone, there is good for them in the world and they must have it and when they don't perceive it there is suffering.

As to causing harm, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't that is unless you forgive yourself for all the things you should have done but didn't or all the things you shouldn't have done but did. We make mistakes or errors in applying ourselves despite best intentions.

 

Until you perceive or claim someone else is the cause of your injury and then if not a god at least a guard against your wrath is needed.

 

Yes---very true. The moment of Now--which is all that truly exists---even if the single moment is extremely brief in duration, exists when the position of all particles and quanta of that reality are determined, for it is only when the position is determined that they exist as particles.

And the double slit experiment, especially in its variations demonstrates that it is intention that determines that the wave-particle function of quanta collapses to a particle (the quandary for science is, whose intention?). Intention follows conception.

 

contradiction :

creation is an intention followed by conception .