If God Is A Contradiction Then He Does Not Exist

You mean human made contradictions? I agree with themnax: those contradictions don't say shit about the actual existence of a god or more.

 

Missed my point completely, of course!

Of course humans make contradictions,

They invented Gods too...

Go figure!

 

I think your point was: humans invented gods, and they make contradictions. Therefor (those) gods don't exist.
What we are, or at least I am, saying is just because humans have narrowed down and contradicting views of god(s) and projected all kind of human and other attributes onto their god(s) doesn't mean there can't be any. Hey, maybe they are even angry at us and killing eachother

 

It seems to me theists do just that, attributing their human need for the existence of a higher power to its veritable existence without any evidence to support those existences.

 

Some do that. Not nearly all of them of course. Some nuancing would do your posts good.

 

Thought is comparison. Comparison in it's very nature is contradictory as one opposite has to be related to the other.

 

I think a case can be made that religion in general is an expression of human rationality. It was rational for our distant ancestors to come up with religious explanations of the phenomena they encountered in everyday life, at a time long before science and its methods were available for alternative views. It is rational for humans to find meaning and a foundation for morality in religious belief-value systems, in the absence of scientifically grounded alternatives. It is rational for humans to think that the existence and integrated complexity of the universe can best be explained by the existence of a Higher Power, when some impressive scientific intellects seem to be convinced of that, and when science can provide no definitive alternatives. It is rational for humans to recognize that they aren't fully rational, and that their unconscious drives and needs can best be reconciled to their conscious egos by metaphorical symbolism. It is rational to realize that doing science is not quite the same thing as doing life, and that verificationism is not always the most workable approach to the latter. Of course, the particulars of religious belief need work. The Olympian pantheon, Baal, etc., don't fit the needs and conditions of modern society. The so-called "contradictions" of religion are a function of the facts that existing religious belief-systems were made by humans, often with political agendas, and that ordinary folks are too absorbed in getting on with their lives to notice. But overall we've made progress in eliminating some of the excesses: human sacrifice, cannibalism, headhunting, temple prostitution, witch and heretic burnings, etc. There's certainly room for improvement, but no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Subjecting particular beliefs to constant critical scrutiny guided by reason can help religion work itself pure.

 

When theists make claims about attributes of God, I think they perceive that their God has somehow imbued them with the capability to think that way. If the concepts and attributes of God becomes a crap shoot to theists, then I don't really understand what the point of investing time, worship, and defending scriptures of their God would be.

If we are to compare and contrast some items, the comparison aspect is usually suggesting the likeness and similarities of the items. Comparison does seem to assert the autonomy of the items but that doesn't necessarily mean they are opposing or incongruent. Therefore, I disagree with the assertion that comparison is contradictory by nature.

As far as your first sentence goes, are you suggesting that having thought suggests autonomy, which automatically assumes a comparison from the individual to everything out there?

 

Yes, in order for thought to exist the mind takes certain aspects of reality in isolation and measures them against other aspects. This fragmenting process is the source of conflict and contradiction. That's why when the thought process shuts down you come into truth, beauty, love....ect.

 

But you are fragmenting right there and I assume you don't see contradictions with those concepts do you?

 

They're different words for the same thing. The shear experience of what is without the veil of any thoughts or judgements getting in the way.

 

Concepts like love and truth have varying levels to them and therein thought is necessary for these concepts. What's love without thought??

I agree that some of our judgements could perhaps be a bit more visceral but in a silly, dramatic example the love given to a person is going to be different then the love given to a goat, which is going to be different then the love given to a wall. Thought is a necessity at some level for the level of love you are willing to give each of those.

Same with truth, particularly once there is interaction between two sentient beings the levels of truth change.

So to bring it back around to the op topic, these transitory ways in which we experience and think about these concepts is along the similar lines of experience and thought which makes many of the absolute attributes of God contradictory.

 

Love can mean different things. The love I'm talking about has nothing to do with pleasure, desire or memories. It would be witnessing the sacred.

Truth is simply what is now. There aren't different levels just distortions when attachment to thought occurs. It's like being in a wavy mirror fun house at a carnival.

 

Thank you, again, DarkMatter2525...


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0A_iF1B3k0