An argument for the non-existance of deity

Lol come on man ...

No offense, but haven't you been paying attention to the past 2 or 3 pages? At all?

I'm going to say this only one more time ...

The god I am talking about is "God" with a capital G. Yawheh, Jehovah, YHWH, IAUE, the Christo-Judean God, the Lord, He Most High, whatever else you want to call him.

That god.

 

So, you and I agree that there is more than human logic, that there may be an order to things (which is what Hinduism/Buddhism refers to as Dharma, by the way) that transcends the scope of the human mind, that there is a logic beyond the finite grasp of human consciousness.

If this is true, then the human mind, as wonderful as it is, cannot be the sole instrument for determining whether or not something may exist.

But we have discussed that already.

The real issue is the difference between logic and existence.

Consider the argument, given by every true mystic in every tradition, that the nature of God transcends logic. Or rather, while the nature of God is ultimately logical, logic is an inadequate measure of what God is, or at least, what people refer to when they speak of God.

If it helps, then think about it this way for just a moment. Consider your favorite human creations, literature, language, music, etc.

Are the rules, the logic, of English grammar and vocabulary an inadequate measure of what your favorite book means to you?

Does a completely accurate description of the rhythm, tempo, harmony, melody and thematic structure really describe that intangible quality of your favorite song?

Would an exhaustive biography, a complete transcript of every conversation you've ever had, a photograph, a DNA sample or a map of your genome, explain who you really are?

Should YOUR existence be restricted by your logical definitions?

Or should I go on assuming there is more to you, and to everything, than your categories, measurements and definitions?

Just a thought.

Peace and Love

 

Yea that God can be defined, if you beleive in the demi-urge, which is a Gnostic belief, or the Annunaki belief from the Sumerians, the Annunaki making up the demi-urge's. That is the point we were trying to get across about the common beleif's of God.

The God you talk about in the original post is the undefinable, there is no conceiving it or rationally processing it in our mortal brains. But the Yahweh God you mentioned above, CAN be defined to an extent, from what we know, like I said, if you beleive in the Annunaki being the demi-urge.

The rest can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

My theory is that the demiurge is the Annunaki, creators of the physical world, which was already here, in the form of basic life and slowly evolving mammals and reptiles, until the demiurge appeared, creating modern man. The demiurge being lesser Gods (Annunaki) than the almighty undefinable God we agreed on. This is my theory, we all have our own, but it makes a lot more sense than anything else I've read. So I'm stickin to my guns on this one. :sunglasse

 

Varuna I think that better describes what you were trying to say.

Oh, and we already agreed that God, is undefinable, and words cannot actually define the essence of God, because it would lose meaning.

 

You can't just say god, though I've known the whole time what your talking about. The God of the monotheisms. The thing is only Allah, is thought of as an irrational god that is beyond comprehension. The christian and jewish god, is very rational and logical and defined. I don't know where your pulling this idea of an irrational god and illogical god though. Tell me exactly what your trying to get at with this post man? Reefer madness and I were saying the super all-god is beyond logic and can only be "felt" instead of understood. Were arguing about the same thing. What sources are you drawing from? What the hell illogical aspects of the monotheistic god are you referring too?

 

Yes.

This was established at least 5 pages ago ... if not more.

However, the human mind DOES know enough about logical systems to conclude that something cannot exist unless it can be defined (in some logical system or another). If this were not true, then our logic system would not work the way it does.

The book is not a description of what it means to me. But yes, I would be able to describe what my favourite book means to me, if I wrote a crituque about it -- in that sense, yes, the rules and logic of English grammer and vocab are enough to represent it.

Just like a blueprint to a house isn't a house, a "description" of the parts of the song is not the song itself. It does describe the quality of the song, but it does not instill the emotional appreciation of it.

Not 100% accurately, but combined, they would do a pretty good job.

No human representation of something is perfect. Perfectly accurate description is impossible. There are perhaps millions of words that would describe an ice cube ... cold, melting, cubic, translucent ... and yet, no single word, nor any combination of these words, can perfectly explain what an ice cube is. It can accurately describe it, but it cannot be a perfect description; the only thing that can perfectly reflect/describe a thing is the thing itself.

Assuming is not a good thing to do.

You should assume that there may be more to me. But since there is no evidence of such (as you have already looked through a master photo album, heard the recordings of every conversation I've ever had, done a complete biological scan of me and my DNA, etc.), then it is not something that you would be justified in believing.

When faced with the question, "is there more to this person than I know?" One cannot know what is left to be known, if anything. Therefore, one must remain silent and hold judgment at bay.

Yes, I can.

But I didn't say god anyway.

I said God. With a capital G.

This has a special meaning. It is a PROPER noun. It references a SPECIFIC deity.

Not according to (a) the Bible, (b) its followers, and (c) the clergy.

From the idea that "God is beyond all logic."

Sorry man, this was all done way earlier in this thread. On the first page.

Please, read the thread if you're going to post!

Okay, let me say this as loudly and clearly as I can:

GO READ THE FIRST POST.

Then read the rest of this thread!

If you STILL cannot understand what my argument is, you should stop trying to understand it, and post on another thread.

No, we are NOT arguing about the same thing. YOU are talking about YOUR super all-god, I am talking about a DIFFERENT super all-god; one with a name that is a proper noun and is written about in a specific book, called the Holy Bible.

The nature of logic. Read the first post.

ALL of them!

Hello!

WELCOME TO MY THREAD.

Please read it before you post!

I will repeat it one more time, for you and all to see:

Omnipotence (all-powerful)
Omnipresence (all-pervading)
Omniscience (all-knowing)
Omnibenevolence (all-good/loving)
Being beyond all logic

=====

Now seriously, all of you. STOP arguing about YOUR concept of "God." I am not talking about your concept!

 

accident double post read below

 

So you agree with me. This other God, in the bible, that you get your basis for an argument, is a lesser god, the demiurge. Fuck the bible, it's all mistranslated bullshit that was corrupted the moment the first asshole child molesting bishop mentioned it at the Council of Nicea. I don't want to get into an argument over the Holy Bible and its flaw's, you just have to realize Christianity now is branch duct taped on to the original tree it fell off. Gnosticism, Jesus's true teachings, talks about the demiurge...hmmm I wonder why that was left out? Maybe so they could use God, the one you speak, who is definable, as a precipise for creating hell and prayer and what not.

You agreed with me here...

That is my interpretation of God, not the Christian-Judean God, aka the demiurge aka Annunaki. If you can base an argument on the holy bible I should be able to base my argument on Sumerian Texts and Gnostics texts.

Focker OUT!

 

Oh right I forgot. We're supposed to beleive in the brainwashed Christian conformist concept of God.

My reasonings are just as valid as any other. I didn't pull all this shit out of my ass after eating a pack of Hot Pockets. You have to realize the only way to come close to God, is by ingesting psylocibin mushrooms or DMT. NOT LSD. LSD doesn't come close to bringing you to the gnosis, aka logos, that we are capable of reaching. In this realm we experience God, but we still cannot define it. All we have is language, and we try to pour it all over but it simply falls off like water on a ducks back. There is only experience. The enlightened stay silent because there are no words for what they know.

 

HELL FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!

 

Hikaru just from now on stick to the original title of the thread and say deity, cuz thast what you mean. You don't mean God, because you have no idea of what the Bible even says about god, or the monotheisms. Christianty believes god is ALL-PERVADING, and ALL-knowing like you said, but seriously nothing says beyond logic. Your blending modern ideas without facts. Omnipotence is perfectly logical. Still man your confusing yourself with this beyond logic shit. The only undefinable god beyond logic is the muslim Allah, who has no idols, or pictures defining it. It stresses strongly this aspect, saying Judaism and Christianity both fucked up the monotheism this way. You say all this shit about description and such, all your pointing out are the faults of linguistics. DESCRIPTION INVOLVES SCRIPTURE. Middle English describen, from Latin dscrbere, to write down : d-, de- + scrbere, to write
To WRITE.
So a being unable to write, can't describe itself as you said in your Ice cube metaphor.

You should try saying what you mean without using the words Reason and Logic. As for saying the Clergy and followers of the Christian God as saying God is beyond "logic" and "comprehension" thats bullshit. He is the Father, part of the trinity. All those words you said that began with ALL. This has nothing do with fucking LOGIC. Christians define god you defined him saying Omnipotence (all-powerful)
Omnipresence (all-pervading)
Omniscience (all-knowing)
Omnibenevolence (all-good/loving), you don't make sense dude, your confused idea of these religions is showing.

Your thinking in an atheist boxed in mindframe, that God is your ultimate enemy. You cannot recognize the truths, and the theories that Reefer and I were pointing out to you. You say your basing your Ideas on the christian god on the bible, yet the bible is all about describing god, his attributes and his powers, "logically". Dude what hte FUCK ARE YOU GETTING AT. Now as for DEITY, I dunno man just do what I said and make a post about how Deity cant exist outside of logic or reason without saying those words.

 

Then why the fuck are you arguing with me.

That's what this argument is about. The God from the Bible.

I don't disagree with you on the point you are making. But the point you are making has absolutely NO relevance to the point I am making.

I don't give a shit what God you are talking about, I am talking about a different one.

This is not a thread for you to come on here and base your argument on "Sumerian Texts." This isn't an argument over whether the Holy Bible is any more valid than Sumerian texts.

This is an argument against God. With a CAPITAL G.

Listen ...

I AM NOT DEBATING YOUR REASONING.

I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR REASONING.

I AM NOT SAYING YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE BRAINWASHED CHRISTIAN CONFORMIST CONCEPT OF GOD.

I AM NOT DEFENDING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE BRAINWASHED CHRISTIAN CONFORMIST CONCEPT OF GOD.

YES, I AM TALKING ABOUT THEIR CONCEPT OF GOD.

YES, I AM DEMONSTRATING WHY IT IS INCORRECT.

STOP ARGUING WITH ME OVER WHICH CONCEPT IS CORRECT.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF YOUR CONCEPT.

IT IS ABOUT THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CHRISTIAN CONCEPT.

The original post was only the start of this argument.

Read the rest of this thread. It turns into an argument about God with a capital G.

This argument I have been having with you and reefer madness, has become central on "which definition of God" to use when referring to the Christo-Judean concept of God.

Also -- your claims are a bit wild. I "have no idea of what the Bible even says about god, or the monotheisms"? I've READ parts of the Bible that talk about these things. You assume FAR too much.

My MINISTER says beyond logic.

The CLERGY has said beyond logic.

And there have been countless arguments by Christians that "God can't be rationalized, he's beyond reality and beyond all logic."

So suddenly my Minister and the clergy don't count?

And some of the most influential Muslims have embraced the fact that Allah and God are the same deity.

Exactly.

Of course, you can also describe something when you speak.

So spoken words also count as written words; a spoken word is just a written word in an oral format.

A being unable to speak or write cannot describe itself.

First off, the word ALL is a LOGICAL construct.

Secondly, browsing over the Internet, I came across this statement:

"This article is not intended to attack the claims of all theists but merely to refute the case, made by some theists, that God's existence can be proved and that he is beyond or superior to logic."

Similarly, I am not here to attack the claims of all theists, but am merely refuting the case that *most Christians* (at least that I have met) propose, where God is "beyond logic."

Now, THIS quote was taken from bible.org:

"No man can fully explain the Trinity, though in every age scholars have propounded theories and advanced hypotheses to explore this mysterious Biblical teaching. But despite the worthy efforts of these scholars, the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man.

Perhaps the chief reason for this is that the Trinity is a-logical, or beyond logic. It, therefore, cannot be made subject to human reason or logic."

This quote was taken from wavesofdevotion.com:

"In conclusion, although God remains beyond logic it is reasonable that He can still be known, as there are other methods of evidence for ascertaining truth."

And THIS qutoe was taken from thechristiandefense:

"God is beyond logic."

If it is not apparent to you now, that so many Christians actually believe that their God is beyond all logic, then I doubt you're even openly considering my point without being dogmatic about what Christianity is and isn't.

Actually, I'm thinking in a thread in an atheism/agnosticism forum.

My mindframe extends far beyond this argument.

I am merely making a point. If you think this point is my entire mindset, you're sorely mistaken.

For example -- I COULD have a nice debate with you or reefer madness about what the ultimate deity is like, and if there is in fact one that exists.

But sadly -- this thread is NOT about that.

This thread is specifically about the mindframe you are talking about. That's why I started it. If you don't like it, then you don't have to post.

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME.

I AM NOT CONTENDING THAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE WRONG.

STOP DEFENDING YOUR BELIEFS FROM ATTACK WHEN I AM NOT ATTACKING YOUR BELIEFS.

OR BETTER YET -- STOP ATTACKING *ME* WHEN I AM NOT ATTACKING YOUR BELIEFS!



I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS.

YOUR BELIEFS ARE IRRELEVANT IN THIS THREAD.

STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS INTO THIS ARGUMENT, AS IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OF YOUR BELIEFS.

*phew*

Fucking Jesus Christ! Why can't you get this through your fucking head?

 

I didn't get to edit fast enough, I meant to say Entirely, god is not beyond logic, entirely. I thought you would understand that being as I was pro-"god" in the past threads. God to the Christians is not entirely beyond logic, it is not frowned upon if it is thought of this way though, differing it from Islams version of Allah.

Now wheres the mathematical evidence to indicate how this thread has spiraled out of control?

What if this is just the natural method of everything, manifested right here and now? Maybe its myself and reefer, maybe its you.

What is this probability that all the sudden this spiral reference has surfaced here in our thread about god vs logic? Is this a synchronicity?
My very first post referred to this spiral synchronicty found throughout all life. I dunno man I think this is just proof of a higher intelligence my good man.

I dunno man if this doesn't define god straight up, then youz purposely blind! Open them stupid ass eyes.

 

lol, yea it was a good conversation, i think it just came down to that final thread, why hasn't anyone made a conversation about what the ultimate deity is like?

i think im going to start it

 

Look, people see things, then they are like, well it is real, I know it to be true, because I see it. I see a cat. Thus I know there is a cat.

I see God, God is everywhere, God is BEING, god is one consciousness beyond time/space and in all time/space... God is what I see... I am plenty aware of the maya, the illussion of seperation, the material plane... all those things that are part and one with God... I trust my own experience, I trust my own knowledge of this... I am not alone, plenty mystics throughout all of religion have this experience, and Amit Goswami and others feel that quantum mechanics proves this as well... That is all I need to be 10000000% convinced... call me whatever, but I'm sold on my inner experience, I trust it, I know it.

So it's not like you are going to convince a madman that sees God based on any argument... It's like trying to argue with a person about gravity... you drop a pencil and you say, look the pencil dropped... I see it, I trust that experience, I know it. The other person says, well I don't... The person seeing the pencil drop, is not gonna be argued out of knowledge of gravity, the same way I am not going to be argued out of knowledge of god. I see it like a see gravity, and I trust that. Yes quantum mechanics deepened my trust I admit that.

Like one of my spiritual teacher Ram Dass (servant of God) says, "If you don't understand what I am saying then you really have only two choices. Either I am crazy or you are."


So call me crazy, I kind of enjoy the title... I think of you the same way hikaru...

 

See, here's what I don't get. How can god be "partially" in some logical system, and "partially" not. That suggestion seems almost absurd to the mind.

It makes sense that a god could exist in a logical system that is more inclusive than ours (such that we can't comprehend certain properties of a god, but those properties are still defined, in some reality somewhere else), and then his properties which we can't comprehend "translate" into our reality, whenever that deity extends its reach into our world -- resulting in things like "magic" and "miracles." But, the very essence of God being "both beyond logic and not beyond logic" is absurd, it violates the most fundamental principal of logic, ~(A & ~A), which means "something can't be this, and not this, at the same time."

As for the spiral reference, I have no idea how there is a "spiral reference" in our thread ... but I'm not contesting that, because the thread isn't about it.

 

lol ...

Nor would you convince a fool that sees a singular consciousness, based on any rational argument ...

(just poking some fun)

 

"The world is like a ride at an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, 'Hey – don't worry, don't be afraid ever, because this is just a ride ...' And we ... kill those people. Ha ha, 'Shut him up. We have a lot invested in this ride. Shut him up. Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account and my family. This just has to be real.' It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. But it doesn't matter, because – it's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." - Bill Hicks

Hikaru's arguments are a "...very interesting defense mechanism, and the only way to get by it – and believe me, I was raised Southern Baptist – is to take massive amounts of mushrooms, sit in a field and just go, 'Show me.'" - Bill Hicks...


In your case Hikaru I think perhaps that would be good advice. At least for a few hours you would agree with me.

Jesus is giving a sufer sign... because mushrooms or whatever... what it really is about is catching the wave of the NOW, the HERE NOW.

 

The post began as something, spiraled into something else, then returned now is back again. Logic, then it went to god, then what god, then back to logic, vs illogical. Right here is an example of the universe and deity and arguement proving the existence. What are you gonna throw chaos theory at me Ian Malcolm, you just gonna blame that its our fault for spiraling the original intent of the thread into something different then back again?

 

Chaos theory? That seems appropriate enough.

Why does a deity have to exist, just because topics go back and forth on a forum? That's absurd. It's like saying "oh nice, 2 + 2 =4, that means God!" But it's nothing close to proof, or even suggestion.

If you believe in free choice, then it was OUR choices on what topics to "spiral into," and God had nothing to do with it -- it therefore has nothing to do with the divine.

Yes, certain patterns -- many of which I imagine you'd call a "spiral" of sorts -- are very prominent throughout the universe. And yet, with as near-infinitely large as the universe is, is it no wonder that certain basic patterns (such as 5 sides to an object, or the ratio we call phi, or the double helix pattern) exist in various places all over it?

It makes sense to say "chaos theory is capable of this."

It also makes sense to say "a divine creator is capable of this."

But which one is more rational? One of these things we have evidence for -- objective evidence, which does not rely on emotion -- chaos theory.

With the other option, all we have are subjective texts from old civilizations, logical thinking suggests that it is not rational to believe in it.