Why a creative 'God' cannot Exist

Why a creative God cannot exist.

I am not for one minute suggesting that some kind of 'God' cannot exist, merely that God as many religons believe in it/he/she cannot.

Here is the basis of my argument (I'm planning on writing an essay to this effect so please point out any holes).

If 'God' is omnipotent, all knowing, all powerful, everywhere at once, then can he ever have had a creative thought, ie to create the universe and us?
Knowledge of 'everything' (by that I mean everything that has happend and everything that ever will as Christians believe), would mean that God would be aware of every 'thought' that he will ever have and thus not be capable of creativity, original ideas etc. (I have questions as to whether such a being would even be conscious but that is another matter). What I mean is without some type of random unknowable factor God could have no 'insipration' (I'm not sure if that is the right word), and nowhere to channel that infinite power.

So either God does not know 'everything' (and there I think that definition of God as is believed in breaks down) or God is simply an existance which cannot do anything except exist and therefore could not have created us.


Anyway this is the gist of my theory. Comments? Anyone who completely knocks it down has to come up with an alternative topic!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Any attempt to define God leads to paradoxes such as "If God knows everything can he learn anything new?" We end up with a moron God. In order to believe in God you must not try to define him, to do so automatically degrades him. Thus blind faith works.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting. I might put that in.

I'm non-religous and have trouble grasping different people's idea of God. None seem to make sense to me. But generally do people believe that God wants people to become enlightened or just to, as you said, 'blindly' worship him?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right! If god was everywhere, there would be no reason to move, if god knew everything, there would be no reason to think, if god were in total control, controlling would not be required. I think William Burroughs said, "If god is control, why does control need to control?".

In the same vein, he also said,"A functioning police state needs no police."

 

Your problem is very apparant. You try to think about god from your own datum with your own limits..Firstly, it should be noted that as human beings we perceive everything from a human perspective and formulate our views accordingly. To take one example, human beings act out of necessity or desire. We set out to do things because we have certain needs or are compelled. Through some infatuation in ill thinking, or ourselves we foolishly presume to compare God to ourselves and suppose that God acts as we do.?


God is different, the Quran describes god as:
He, God, is One; God, the Self-Subsistent, Eternally-Besought-of-All; He neither begets nor was begotten; and nothing whatever is like unto Him.

 

God is a figment of mankinds imagination, God is used as a tool to control and manipulate others. Most of all - it is bullshit!


YUEK! Can anyone smell beefburgers around here??

Nah, its OK. Its just Flores deoderant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You can also add that god is as powerful as one can imagine. Definition of god is to be written by man and to be overwritten by another man.

 

If God exists, would the thought process of "imagining" be too low for it?

 

God never said he wants us to worship him!the priests did,to control,enslave and exploit the believers financialy and otherwise.

problems with believers is they cannot comprehend the contradictory aspects of god,
they will always try to make up some kind of an answer (even lie ) to your questions to justify their belief in their skydude.

why?they are afraid to be punished for eternity is my guess,the fact that theres no gods,souls,spirits heaven or hell anywhere to be seen doesnt seem to make any diffrence to someone who simply believes in something without having any evidence to the contrary.

heres something you might want to read
www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/
www.atheists.org
www.infidels.org/index.shtml

 

You're right, the priests and equal ranks of other faiths being the brainwashers and manipulaters.

Yep, this is the result of brainwashing.. If you tell a lie often enough you begin to believe it, Thats a known fact.

A big percentage of mankind is on the brink of insanity by believing in something that isn't there. But this type of insanity is accepted.

If someone believed in say "the tooth fairy" with the same conviction as religious folk believe in "god", the guy would be certified. I wonder sometimes whether it is mankind itself that is questionable. Why does mankind justify a form of insanity, yet not another??????

 

God is one hand clapping.

^^^^^^Have you ever heard that before? Do you know what group of people are affiliated with that maxim? Before you go marvelling at the intricacy of that statement, just remember, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO sense whatever. And yet people try to grasp it's meaning... because it sounds profound.

 

Umm... you said "he" couldn't be a creator because "he" can't know absolutely everything... why can't you know everything and not have created everything? I didn't invent the ThreeFold Law but i know everything about it... or lets just pretend i was an expert and did. Doesn't mean I created it.

 

What on earth are you talking about? The question of one hand clapping is a Zen Buddhist koan, a subject for meditation that has NOTHING to do with God. I believe this falls under the logical fallacy of a straw man argument, you are refuting a statement of your own creation.

 

Scaperzrule, it goes further than that - omnipotence is impossible. You cannot logically 'do anything'. God is either the entire universe and not aware, thereby not able to act, or He is less than omnipotent.

 

I was referring to the new form of mysticism "that exalts the absurd as a hallmark of religious truth." It's curious that you would speak of "logical fallacy" since the statement is profoundly irrational.
I wanted to RELATE the statement to the discussion underhand by showing that the Father of truth may not be the author of chaos/ambiguity.. whichever way you choose to see it.

---
I used the word "may" because I don't know where you stand on the doctrines of Calvinism.

 

What new form of mysticism? Who said "God is one hand clapping."? How does this relate to the notion that God is not responsible for those aspects of reality that seem chaotic?

I should point out that in the second century, the famous and respected Christian thinker Tertullian said,

"...The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly.
He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible. "

,so absurdity as religious truth is nothing new.

I have been interested in Zen Buddhism for a long time, and those kind of statements that you refer to are not meant to be representative of truth. Indeed, it in the related philosophy of Taoism, they say, "the truth that can be told is not the eternal truth." The apparent absurdity of the Koan is a tool designed to get you questioning your most basic assumptions, turning the mind in on itself, with the eventual goal of displacing the common function of the mind, which is to intercede between you and reality. Once the distorting lenses are removed, reality can be experienced in a more direct and truthful manner.

Another facet in this line of thought is that the appearance of separate things is an illusion created by linear language. So, when observing something, like, for instance, a leaf, it is quite correct to say that the meaning of life is the leaf.

I don't know anything about Calvinism.

 

...but who's statement was it?

The real thing is not a statement, it is a question: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?", not "God is the sound of one hand clapping.".

 

Is no one going to refute the original argument? It's probably the most powerful I've ever heard (I've heard it before) and it ignores all the human-written nonsense and anti-scientific garbage.

God cannot think -> God is just a process, ie. laws of physics.
But God is clearly defined differently everywhere so you might as well just throw out the whole notion of him.

 

That god, or a creative principle, is actually a passive process is similar to the concept of Tao. Gravity has recently been thought to be distortion in some kind of all pervasive field things can sink into, as opposed to an active force. I think creativity can be seen in the same way, it is essentially empty, until we wriggle around and fall into an area of creative possibility.

The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
filled with infinite possibilities.

Tao Te Ching

 

More applicable William S. Burroughs:

"Consider the impasse of a one god universe. He is all-knowing and all-powerful. He can't go anywhere since he is already everywhere. He can't do anything since the act of doing presupposes opposition. His universe is irrevocable thermodynamic having no friction by definition. So he has to create friction. War, fear, sickness, death to keep his dying show on the road... "​

Josh

It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks