Why are the statements that "God does not exist" and "God is all of existence" contradictory?
If god is all of existence, then god is of things that exist.
If god is of things that exist, then god exists.
Therefore, If god is all of existence, then god exists.
Assume: god is all of existence.
Conclusion: *god exists.
"God does not exist" is in direct contradiction to the above conclusion, and therefore in contradiction with "god is all of existence".*
Have you ever heard of a koan?
Yes, I have read about many of them. *Even the practitioners who use them admit they are contradictions. *If the use of them does in fact reveal something about the nature of our surroundings and ourselves, then whatever they do reveal cannot be put into words. *If you know some of these things that they supposedly reveal, then you know that you cannot put it into words. *And yet, you are using the irrational contradictions in rational arguments, something a practitioner of Buddhism would never undertake, at least not with the aim of reaching some sort of conclusion. *Either you are a practitioner, and have some other goal beside reaching a conclusion, or you are a simpleton who has stumbled across the notion of koans and is misusing them in an innocent, though also ignorant, manner. *Unfortunately for you, I don't sense a practitioner in you, but of course, I could be wrong. *But, in any case, it appears that you are misusing the notion of koans. **
God is everything and God is nothing (no-thing).
oh dear, here we go again with the contradictions. Everything is made up of things. *Combinations of things are also things. *If god is everything then god is a combination of things. *Therefore god would also be a thing.
*God is the largest scale (all of existence) and the smallest scale (found at the limit of the resolution of "reality" - smaller than a quark, smaller than a M-brane, etc...). *God is indivisible. *At the most macro scale, you will find the entirety of God; at the most micro of scale, you will find the entirety of God. *God exists without changing beyond the limits of space and time.
and yet more obvious contradictions.
Why do you think "logic" accurately defines true "reality"? *It is only limiting your awareness to the "rational". * The existence of the universe is not rational. *It transcends the rational.
. Ahhh, I see now ... You only appear to be having a rational discussion, and not succeeding very well appearing that way, I might add.
EDIT - your example of contradicting my statement is wrong, based on evidence. *Mine is not.
on the matter of natural phenomena I was showing the illogical outcome of allowing contradictions. *Allowing contradictions would also make evidence meaningless, so I am not sure what your point is there. *On the matter of the nature of god, if you have evidence, present it.
*
We can have a logical discussion or not. *I am only interested in logical ones, and you have as much admitted that you are disinterested in logical ones. *Are we at an impasse?
Please ignore the stars (*), they were added by something wrong with my computer, and now I am lazy.