The Dialectic of Theology

To say something exists is incomplete. It’s no more redundant than saying existence exists, or something is a something. At least they’re talking about a something, but to talk of something without being able to refer to that something in the world, is the result of fancy and imagination.

One cannot speak about something that doesn’t exist or else we’d have nothing to speak about, because what doesn’t exist is, by nature, nothing. But try speaking about nothing for any given length of time, and you’ll always end up speaking about something.

Supposing all that exists is everything, and its contrapositive, nothing is all that does not exist, we find that in order to speak about anything other than nothing, we must speak about a particular something. That particular something, being a part of everything, necessarily exists.

To say something doesn’t exist is a direct contradiction—the very nature of something is that it exists. It’s no different than saying something is nothing. Unfortunately, only nothing is nothing. Since we are not speaking about nothing in our discussions of what doesn’t exist, what doesn’t exist must therefor be something.

Point being, though we still know what you mean when you say it, saying something exists and saying something doesn’t exist is unintelligible and incoherent. Tautologically, only everything exists; only nothing doesn’t exist. In order to talk about what something doesn’t exist as, we must first admit its existence, rather than doing so surreptitiously, so that we are able to speak about its nature in a more honest fashion with our dignities intact. By admitting this, we can refer to existence for our answers, showing to what extent this something exists as in comparison to what extant this something does not exist as, and we avoid these problems.

For instance, to say unicorns do not exist is the same as saying something is nothing, a contradiction. Only when we say a unicorn exists as a cultural artifact of literature, art and myth, can we confirm it doesn’t exist as a white horse with a horn. Only when we say what it is can we say what it is not, and vice versa.

If we are to make any sense of theology, or any philosophy about the nature of God and the supernatural, and what the hell the theist, atheist and agnostic theologians are droning on about, it becomes impossible to derive any intelligibility from their dialectic without inquiring into what something in nature they are referring to, as inquiring into the nature of anything demands at least this much.

In order to do so, we must admit its existence so that we may deduce from this its non-existence. As any study of nature involves, we take empirical considerations towards it, and in so doing we find in all cases, theologians are referring to mere fancies of their own mind, which have been derived from the cultural artifacts that surround them. Though each derivation differs in accordance with the creativity of the theist/atheist/agnostic theologian, his experiences and the cultural lens he interprets them through, what he derives it from is the cultural artifacts he has experienced in tandem with his interpretations of them, which is what it is in the world that he refers to when he speaks of God. Empirically, the term refers to nothing else but a fiction. If god is indeed something, and we can refer to it, then this is what God is. God exists as a fiction. If this premise is accepted, and the premise that a fiction is not a fact, we can reasonably conclude that God does not exist as a fact—the synthesis of the dialectic of theology.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
To say something doesn’t exist is a direct contradiction—the very nature of something is that it exists.

Something can exist as a concept (like God) but not exist in form. That's what people mean when they say God doesn't exist. Of course, the concept, idea, thought exists.

For instance, to say unicorns do not exist is the same as saying something is nothing, a contradiction. Only when we say a unicorn exists as a cultural artifact of literature, art and myth, can we confirm it doesn’t exist as a white horse with a horn.

Exactly.

I'd like to think where this all breaks down is in our dreams, but what we can't make sense of in our thoughts, at night are nothing more than a conglomerate, mish-mash of "somthings" we have already perceived.

I'm curious to think how many artist's impressions have contributed and allowed me to dream as though I have witnessed them in real life.

On paper, they are impressions. In my mind, they become real and substantive, adding motion and depth to a silent, two dimensional concept.

Are they real because our imagination can be put into words and pictures allowing us to breath life into them in our dreams?

a reply to: eisegesis

Fiction is, in a sense, a relationship between author and reader. The author exploits through evocation the reader's imagination. There's a principle in writing called show don't tell that utilizes this.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The point is, we can only show what something isn't by first showing what it is. its tricky to think about, but by revealing what something really is, we necessarily refute what it isn't.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

As always beautiful.
The duality of existence/ non-existence in it's clear reference to the individuals standing-point.
Thinking about symbols can always be challenging especially for some who confuse it with it's content, like unicorns.
Unicorns exist undeniably in our creative mind, but also have references to reality, things they stand for, like innocence, imagination and rhinos...
I think the ones starting the everything is not existing really meant it symbolic, as in the "perception creates your world", doesn't make it not-existing in a literal material way. Symbols are real, they exist in this very duality, because they talk to our inner-unicorns.
Very beautiful
S&F

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You haven't proven that God is just fiction. The Belief/Faith that God is fiction is just another belief.

Just because you never saw a unicorn that doesn't mean it's not real. I think some Ancient Greeks saw them. Believing is seeing. Reality is not based around the limited belief systems of materialists/atheists, they only believe it is because of their lack of Faith/Belief and therefore they do not experience the beings and miracles that other people experience.

a reply to: arpgme

Sure. Make a case for God and unicorns and the theist/spiritualist limited belief system, and we'll take a look at it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Race for entangled electrons
nano.ku.dk...

By coupling a small superconductor to an ultrathin nanowire the researchers succeeded in separating the Cooper-pair from the superconductor.

The two electrons run in opposite directions along the nanowire. The electrons each run in opposite directions at a nanoscale T-junction, but are still 'mentally connected' or 'entangled', as it is called in the jargon of quantum mechanics.

Thus, the researchers can influence one of the electrons and see a reaction in the other, even though the pair is physically separated.

This magic! And it comes from science.
For me religion doesnt exist. But Magic god the Universe and wonders do.


Your words, and I admire your eloquence as always

and what the hell the theist, atheist and agnostic theologians are droning on about

we can reasonably conclude that God does not exist as a fact

Do I take back my compliment when you display the same droning you accuse atheists et al of?

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Do I take back my compliment when you display the same droning you accuse atheists et al of?

God does not exist as a fact (you conveniently left out the rest of the sentence unbolded) is statement about the world. Do you think it is wrong? If so, what is your reasoning?