God is Impossible

[austintorn@aol.com]

God is Impossible

‘God’ is a supposedly fundamental Being who thought, planned, and created all else, including a special species of higher mammals on planet Earth. Whether He micromanages everything that goes on here and everywhere is not a concern, although that, too, can be shown not to be by looking everywhere.

1. First Being, or even any beings, or even molecules cannot be first and fundamental because they are compositional. No way around this.

Believers cannot use the notion of ‘God’ towards that very notion they wish to prove, and, besides, ‘magic’ is not acceptable either.

Systems cannot be first, period, for they must have constituents.

Believers will be unable to refute this, and will even neglect to try since they so much want what they want that they have become immune to reason, logic, and evidence.

They created the impossible God by extending cause and effect for substance and life into a higher system of Life of God most likely based on a higher family structure based on their own, but they not only forgot (neglected) that this notion would require even more LIFE behind the Life, stopping at just a word and being completely satisfied with the even larger dilemma that they couldn’t accept in the first place.

While that is psychology on the nature of belief, it explains the belief stance of faith for those who wonder about that aspect of the human condition, but it is mere academic exercise after the fact of God being impossible.

We ourselves and our constituents took 14 billion years to reach our present being and we are by no means comparable to the proposed Super Being Life Form who is even said to be of infinite magnitude. There is no Super Being possible as the first and creator of all because this Fellow cannot be elemental in the least.

This impossibility proof via self contradiction is the way to undo a universal negative and is presented since believers wrongly state ‘God’ as fact and truth, a grave deception, which is yet another topic not addressed here, but surely worthless at least and and unethical at best.

Believers could not have been any more wrong, for they looked for complexity in the complete wrong direction, even surpassing this initial error by supposing a fundamentalness for a system, and yet even going more and totally astray by having it to be ultimate and infinite in scope.

[melanie]

Remember Austin, 'God' is a word.

In Genesis One says And God Said… ''let there be light''etc etc. Note that creation itself is a product of words that are spoken.
Then the book of John expands on this saying ''In the Beginning was the WORD.'' And the WORD was with God and the WORD was God.
He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything that was made.

'Him' not being a literal character - lets not get confused about that. Him is a word, words come from the mind.
There is a mind apparently, and all information comes from the mind, right ?

There must be a super intelligence responsible for existence, otherwise it would not exist, and it clearly does exist, but it only exists to the mind, right?
There is no person with a mind, because a person is just a word like god is a word.

To say God is impossible is to say existence is impossible, and that's not true is it?

''WE'' simply do not know where and what existence has sprung from, and we do not know where it goes when it is no longer observable.
But we don't need to know anything at all, because we are existence itself and it is known only to itself only.
It's infuriating to the mind, because its like the eye trying to look at itself, its impossible, yet not impossible, as existence evidently exists.
But there's nobody home here, there is no 0ne existing, there's just existence.

The reason we don't know the answers to the how's or why's or where's existence is or has come from - is because there is only one of us here.
Does that make sense to a human?

It does make sense if it is thought about deeply enough.

Then we say how can 'One' exist. That's where it gets really tricky.

Science assumes all came from the 'Big Bang' but what caused the Big Bang? that is a barrier Einstein proved we will never see beyond.
We will never know what caused it, perhaps it never happened?

[labelwench]

''WE'' simply do not know where and what existence has sprung from, and we do not know where it goes when it is no longer observable.
But we don't need to know anything at all, because we are existence itself and it is known only to itself only.

Originally posted by Melanie

I hope that you won't mind if I work with the words you have provided, Melanie, and make the sentence as follows:

''WE'' simply do not know because we are existence itself.

"We" are existence experiencing itself, I have often pondered, and as such "WE" are the god we seek, and "God" is the "We".

Science and Spirit are not mutually exclusive. It's rather that they stand back to back looking away from each other that leads to the perspectives of each.

The day that each turns 180 degrees, they will collide with each other.

[melanie]

I hope that you won't mind if I work with the words you have provided, Melanie, and make the sentence as follows:

''WE'' simply do not know because we are existence itself.

"We" are existence experiencing itself, I have often pondered, and as such "WE" are the god we seek, and "God" is the "We".

Science and Spirit are not mutually exclusive. It's rather that they stand back to back looking away from each other that leads to the perspectives of each.

The day that each turns 180 degrees, they will collide with each other.

Excellent, i couldn't have worded it better myself...lol

Well said Lorrina.

[melanie]

The Biblical theology of God squarely matches everything that information science tells us about reality.

But as long as Science takes the Biblical theology ''literally'' they won't ever ''Get It''

[labelwench]

Excellent, i couldn't have worded it better myself...lol

Well said Lorrina.

Yourself and others do the 'heavy lifting' when it comes to this topic, Melanie, which allows me the opportunity to contemplate the gems that come to light. I tend to have a number of topics all chasing around in my mind simultaneously and I enjoy those postings which provide a moment for my thoughts to 'light and set'.

May the joy and beauty of this day attend you and yours.

[labelwench]

The Biblical theology of God squarely matches everything that information science tells us about reality.

But as long as Science takes the Biblical theology ''literally'' they won't ever ''Get It''

The literal and the spiritual are both paths that eventually wind around to the same destination: the end of our biological experiment and a return to the elemental state, in my opinion. The same journey, just different scenery and different companions along the way.

Some call me a 'fence-sitter', yet I have but traveled both paths in my life to date and have a modest understanding of what is the 'lure' of each of these schools of thought.

[Mr. Ignorant]

1. Beings are composites.
2. God is a being.
3. Therefore God is a composite.
4. Therefore God doesn't exist.

I disagree with 1. All beings that we know of are composites. We're able to break them down into parts. However IMO it's a mistake to assume that every being is necessarily a composite, just because we've had a lot of success with it. I can see that it's tempting to try to break God down into parts, but don't forget that God is of another realm that we know nothing about. We used to think that it was impossible for something to be true and false at the same time. Then quantum mechanics was discovered and we were able to see that our logic was limited. From that point it was possible for something to be true and false at the same time; a so-called superposition of states. I'm not sure if 2 is right either. Maybe it's not right to classify God as a being. I'm not implying that he's an object. Perhaps God is beyond beings and systems, whatever that may be. So I don't think that you can conclude 3.

Now let us suppose that 1 and 2 are true. Therefore 3 must be true as well. So God is a composite and indeed not fundamental. According to your logic, 4 must follow. I think there's a way around this. You could say that God as a composite has always existed (and so did his parts). It weren't his parts that created him, because they always existed in that specific composition that makes up God. So God could've created everything and yet not be fundamental. Relative to us he's quite fundamental.

And perhaps his parts did exist separated before God came into being. My question is; can a composite God be all-powerful? My own answer to that question is yes. He can still be all-powerful, all-loving and infinite. And without him, we may not have existed.

I'm not offering proof for God. I'm just thinking of possibilities in order to refute that God is necessarily impossible.

[labelwench]

1. Beings are composites.
2. God is a being.
3. Therefore God is a composite.
4. Therefore God doesn't exist.

I disagree with 1. All beings that we know of are composites. We're able to break them down into parts. However IMO it's a mistake to assume that every being is necessarily a composite, just because we've had a lot of success with it. I can see that it's tempting to try to break God down into parts, but don't forget that God is of another realm that we know nothing about. We used to think that it was impossible for something to be true and false at the same time. Then quantum mechanics was discovered and we were able to see that our logic was limited. From that point it was possible for something to be true and false at the same time; a so-called superposition of states. I'm not sure if 2 is right either. Maybe it's not right to classify God as a being. I'm not implying that he's an object. Perhaps God is beyond beings and systems, whatever that may be. So I don't think that you can conclude 3.

Now let us suppose that 1 and 2 are true. Therefore 3 must be true as well. So God is a composite and indeed not fundamental. According to your logic, 4 must follow. I think there's a way around this. You could say that God as a composite has always existed (and so did his parts). It weren't his parts that created him, because they always existed in that specific composition that makes up God. So God could've created everything and yet not be fundamental. Relative to us he's quite fundamental.

And perhaps his parts did exist separated before God came into being. My question is; can a composite God be all-powerful? My own answer to that question is yes. He can still be all-powerful, all-loving and infinite. And without him, we may not have existed.

I'm not offering proof for God. I'm just thinking of possibilities in order to refute that God is necessarily impossible.

Nicely and respectfully stated.

[austintorn@aol.com]

…but don't forget that God is of another realm…

Supposition, plus worse, it is stated as truth. No support. Just a wish.