-->
@PressF4Respect
If you believe that an infinite god exists, then everything that exists must be part of this infinite god.
This makes every voice the voice of god and every book the word of god.
There'll never be closure on whether God exists
Posts
Total:
554
-->
@PressF4Respect
I can believe that there is a 100% steel teapot that is also 100% made of ceramicTherefore I do believe that there is a 100% steel teapot that is also 100% made of ceramic
Where's the logical contradiction?
Do you know how a brain works?
No.
-->
@3RU7AL
What you're describing is called, "gainsaying". [LINK]
Brilliant. But that's not an apt description of the recent events of this thread. An argument was made. No one is claiming to have provided a counterargument. I don't believe anyone has even submitted a contradiction. All that was asked of you was to supply substance to your argument.
-->
@Athias
An argument was made.
Actually, a claim was made.
No one is claiming to have provided a counterargument.
My point exactly.
-->
@PressF4Respect
This doesn’t mean that there is 100% no god.
The claim that "god exists" is an appeal to ignorance if you refuse to define which specific version of gods you are referring to.
The gods that most people care about proving are logically incoherent.
People only care about the hypothetical existence of gods (IFF) it empowers them in some way.
Only logically incoherent gods bestow wisdom to special specific chosen prophets and make them write dusty old books of rules.
The gods that are possible are necessarily (EITHER) incomprehensible (OR) indistinguishable from pure imagination.
-->
@3RU7AL
This makes every voice the voice of god and every book the word of god.
If you think that god IS the universe, then this would be the case. What most theists believe is that their god/gods created the universe, and is therefore outside of it.
This doesn’t mean that there is 100% no god.The claim that "god exists" is an appeal to ignorance if you refuse to define which specific version of gods you are referring to.The gods that most people care about proving are logically incoherent.People only care about the hypothetical existence of gods (IFF) it empowers them in some way.Only logically incoherent gods bestow wisdom to special specific chosen prophets and make them write dusty old books of rules.The gods that are possible are necessarily (EITHER) incomprehensible (OR) indistinguishable from pure imagination.
It's basically Russel's Teapot worded differently. We can't say for sure that there isn't a teapot with X characteristics in between Earth and Mars, but it would be more of a stretch to say that there is, without concrete evidence to back it up.
-->
@Athias
I can believe that there is a 100% steel teapot that is also 100% made of ceramicTherefore I do believe that there is a 100% steel teapot that is also 100% made of ceramicWhere's the logical contradiction?
This example points out the fact that the syllogism is so vague and general that it allows all statements to be true, even nonsensical ones. In other words, if you take it at face value, it doesn't mean anything. Again, this goes back to the point that just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.
Do you know how a brain works?No.
In a nutshell, this is how the brain works. The brain consists of many, many neurons. These neurons communicate with each other by firing electrical signals to each other. A specific pattern of neurons firing corresponds to a specific thought/action.
Does the fact that there is a thought (specific pattern of neurons firing) about something mean that the thing that is being thought about automatically exists? No. Just like how a painting of an apple isn't itself an apple (try eating it), the pattern of neurons being fired corresponding to an apple isn't itself an apple, either. Likewise, the thought (pattern of neurons firing) of a particular god/set of gods doesn't mean that the god/gods exist(s).
-->
@PressF4Respect
This makes every voice the voice of god and every book the word of god.If you think that god IS the universe, then this would be the case. What most theists believe is that their god/gods created the universe, and is therefore outside of it.
I'm not really sure how you're getting the "outside of it" part.
The most common definition I've found is the "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent", "creator" (OOOC or 3OC).
-->
@PressF4Respect
The gods that are possible are necessarily (EITHER) incomprehensible (OR) indistinguishable from pure imagination.It's basically Russel's Teapot worded differently. We can't say for sure that there isn't a teapot with X characteristics in between Earth and Mars, but it would be more of a stretch to say that there is, without concrete evidence to back it up.
It is, however, perfectly safe to say that Russel's Teapot is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE IMAGINATION AND HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO BEARING ON OUR DAILY LIVES AND OR OUR CONCEPTS OF HUMAN MORALITY.
-->
@PressF4Respect
This example points out the fact that the syllogism is so vague and general that it allows all statements to be true, even nonsensical ones. In other words, if you take it at face value, it doesn't mean anything. Again, this goes back to the point that just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.
Nope, you're going to have provide more substance to your counterclaim than just a mere statement to ambiguity. You stated that you were demonstrating a failure in my reasoning using the reductio ad absurdum. In order to apply the reductio ad absurdum, you would have to show that the extension of my argument to its logical conclusion is a contradiction/absurdity. You have not done this at all. You merely restated your counterclaim and made nonsensical references to face values and vagueness. Demonstrate the logical contradiction or absurdity. Nothing else.
Does the fact that there is a thought (specific pattern of neurons firing) about something mean that the thing that is being thought about automatically exists? No.
Why not?
Just like how a painting of an apple isn't itself an apple (try eating it), the pattern of neurons being fired corresponding to an apple isn't itself an apple, either.
Operating on your logic, the term apple doesn't exist. So I have no idea of that about which you're talking.
Likewise, the thought (pattern of neurons firing) of a particular god/set of gods doesn't mean that the god/gods exist(s).
Operating on your logic, your response doesn't exist. So '' '' ''' '' '' ....
-->
@3RU7AL
Actually, a claim was made.
A claim was made.
My point exactly.
So let me ask you this: do you believe that the absence of a counterargument mitigates your onus?
Demonstrate the logical contradiction or absurdity. Nothing else.
You see, I have this IMPECCABLE proof that I 100% have that will open your third eye, but I'm simply CHOOSING not to reveal it.
It's literally explained the sentence after this.Does the fact that there is a thought (specific pattern of neurons firing) about something mean that the thing that is being thought about automatically exists? No.Why not?
Just like how a painting of an apple isn't itself an apple (try eating it), the pattern of neurons being fired corresponding to an apple isn't itself an apple, either.Operating on your logic, the term apple doesn't exist. So I have no idea of that about which you're talking.
I'm not talking about the term "apple". I'm talking about an apple.
Likewise, the thought (pattern of neurons firing) of a particular god/set of gods doesn't mean that the god/gods exist(s).Operating on your logic, your response doesn't exist. So '' '' ''' '' '' ....
Did I say "God doesn't exist"? No. I said "it doesn't mean God/gods exists.
-->
@3RU7AL
It is, however, perfectly safe to say that Russel's Teapot is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE IMAGINATION
Could be. Also could be the case that there is a teapot in between Earth and Mars. Without being able to observe all of the space in between Earth and Mars, there's no way to say for sure.
Yes, but this is besides my point.AND HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO BEARING ON OUR DAILY LIVES AND OR OUR CONCEPTS OF HUMAN MORALITY.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not really sure how you're getting the "outside of it" part.The most common definition I've found is the "omnipotent", "omniscient", "omnibenevolent", "creator" (OOOC or 3OC).
The universe is the set of all things inside it. If the god/gods existed inside the universe that it created, then that would mean that the god/gods created it/them self/selves.
-->
@PressF4Respect
Enjoy the rest of your evening and good luck in your future discussions.You see, I have this IMPECCABLE proof that I 100% have that will open your third eye, but I'm simply CHOOSING not to reveal it.
-->
@Athias
Thank you.Enjoy the rest of your evening and good luck in your future discussions
-->
@3RU7AL
Spirituality has nothing to do with entities or belief in entities.
Please substantiate your claim.I'm willing to entertain any definition of "spirituality" you personally prefer
Spirituality is about a person's relationship with the transcendent questions that confront one as a human being. This may or may not involve relationships with God, this is why even atheists can be spiritual.
What you've done is tied spirituality to God, whom you think doesn't exist, and thus conclude spirituality is delusional.
But your definition of spirituality is actually the definition of religion. Even the bible distinguishes the difference between religion and spirituality.
Some spirituality can be delusional of course, but to say that "all spirituality" is delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
-->
@PressF4Respect
God exists everywhere, inside and "outside" the observable universe.God exists outside of the observable universe.
Unless you are able to observe what is beyond the observable universe, you will not be able to observe god.
God also exists inside the observable universe too. And is able to affect me, though I cannot observe Him.
If so, then where?
God is like an electron in an electron cloud. He does not have a specific physical locus unless He chooses to physically manifest in one.
If not, then he is unobservable.
You seem to be using "observable" as "real". That is an incorrect usage of the word. Many real things are not observable, and for a long time, many things observable now were not observable.
Your actual argument is that God does not exist and is therefore unobservable. So I will not allow you to hide behind a misuse of the term, "observable".
Even the bible agrees that God is not observable, but it is a logical leap to go from that to God not existing.
Has God made Himself known to us in any way outside of the bible?
That should be obvious. God was known for thousands of years all over the world before there was a bible. The bible itself is only an indication that God made Himself known.
Which supports my point that though we cannot observe God, He can observe us and affect the world in which we live.
-->
@ethang5
Even a conventional atheist can run with the above non-specific interpretation of God.
Though I would suggest that the words observe and observable are multi-faceted and not as easy to pin down as you are suggesting.
I would make the simple suggestion that.
That which can observe is therefore observable.
Whether that be extra-sensory, ergo sensory observability, or internal data processing/thoughtful observance.
-->
@zedvictor4
That which can be observed is therefore observable.
OK. I can live with that.
But....
"That which cannot be observed is therefore nonexistent."
Doesn't get the approval of logic.
-->
@Athias
So let me ask you this: do you believe that the absence of a counterargument mitigates your onus?
I believe that every claim and every counter-claim must be supported by a sound logical statement based on explicit AXIOMS.
Pretending to shift the burden-of-proof exclusively to one side is a logical fallacy.
-->
@PressF4Respect
AND HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO BEARING ON OUR DAILY LIVES AND OR OUR CONCEPTS OF HUMAN MORALITY.Yes, but this is besides my point.
I'm pretty certain that is the ONLY POINT.
The only reason anyone insists that their favorite hypothetical gods are REAL-TRUE-FACT is because they want to validate imposing their MORAL CODE on everyone.
-->
@ethang5
But...."That which cannot be observed is therefore nonexistent."Doesn't get the approval of logic.
Please present your preferred definition of "exists".
-->
@zedvictor4
That which can observe is therefore observable.Whether that be extra-sensory, ergo sensory observability, or internal data processing/thoughtful observance.
Private information (gnosis) is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM PURE IMAGINATION (Qualia).
-->
@ethang5
Even the bible agrees that God is not observable, but it is a logical leap to go from that to God not existing.
Just like BigFoot.
-->
@ethang5
Spirituality is about a person's relationship with the transcendent questions that confront one as a human being.
What "transcendent questions" specifically are you vaguely hinting at?
This may or may not involve relationships with God, this is why even atheists can be spiritual.
Sure, it might be "the force" or "angels" or "ghosts" or "auras" or any number of vague metaphors.
The same principle applies regardless. If they aren't independently verifiable and or logically necessary, then they are, by definition, imaginary.
What you've done is tied spirituality to God, whom you think doesn't exist, and thus conclude spirituality is delusional.
Thanks for the straw-man. What I've done is examined the definition if "imaginary" and contrasted it with the definition of "exist".
But your definition of spirituality is actually the definition of religion. Even the bible distinguishes the difference between religion and spirituality.
Perhaps your vague bald-assertions serve you well generally, but in this case I'm going to need specifics. Please explain what you believe are the key distinctions between "religion" and "spirituality".
Some spirituality can be delusional of course, but to say that "all spirituality" is delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
I mean, unless you clearly define both "imaginary" and "exist" (Opinion and Fact).
-->
@3RU7AL
What "transcendent questions" specifically are you vaguely hinting at?
I wasn't hinting at anything. That was the definition of spirituality.
Sure, it might be "the force" or "angels" or "ghosts" or "auras" or any number of vague metaphors.
So, you have a problem with the word. What is it to me?
The same principle applies regardless.
What principle would that be? The debunked one of unobservable being nonexistent?
If they aren't independently verifiable
What does "independantly" mean here?
logically necessary,
What does "necessary" mean here?
...then they are, by definition, imaginary.
Whose definition? You are welcome to your illogic. I won't stop you.
What you've done is tied spirituality to God, whom you think doesn't exist, and thus conclude spirituality is delusional
Thanks for the straw-man.
You did define spiritual as worship of entities.
What I've done is examined the definition if "imaginary" and contrasted it with the definition of "exist".
No sir. You slapped the word imaginary on a thing and then pretended that made it nonexistent.
Please explain what you believe are the key distinctions between "religion" and "spirituality".
I already gave you the definition of spirituality. Religion is the set codes of conduct for worshipping a deity.
Some sightings of BigFoot are delusional of course, but to say that "all sightings of BigFoot" are delusional is to assert what you cannot possibly know.
Your general poor thinking and bias has crippled you. Here is what you're doing.
I say, 3+5=8
You say, 6+5=8
You think because your logic claim follows the same structure, it is the same argument. It isn't. Logic is more that just the structure, it is also the data inserted into the structure.
If you think unobserved things are nonexistent because they are unobserved, you make a logical fallacy.
There is a common saying for this logical fallacy. "What I can't see can't hurt me." I find this poor thinking fallacy typical of atheists who think they "know" science.
-->
@ethang5
God exists outside of the observable universe.God exists everywhere, inside and "outside" the observable universe.Unless you are able to observe what is beyond the observable universe, you will not be able to observe god.God also exists inside the observable universe too. And is able to affect me, though I cannot observe Him.
How does God affect you?
If so, then where?God is like an electron in an electron cloud. He does not have a specific physical locus unless He chooses to physically manifest in one.
Has God ever chosen to specifically appear in any physical location before (outside of the bible)?
If not, then he is unobservable.You seem to be using "observable" as "real". That is an incorrect usage of the word. Many real things are not observable, and for a long time, many things observable now were not observable.Your actual argument is that God does not exist and is therefore unobservable. So I will not allow you to hide behind a misuse of the term, "observable".Even the bible agrees that God is not observable, but it is a logical leap to go from that to God not existing.
I never said that god wasn’t real
Has God made Himself known to us in any way outside of the bible?That should be obvious. God was known for thousands of years all over the world before there was a bible. The bible itself is only an indication that God made Himself known.
If the Judeo-Christian god was known all around the world for thousands of years, then how come the vast majority of the world worshipped other deities?
Which supports my point that though we cannot observe God, He can observe us and affect the world in which we live
Has He ever done this outside of the bible?
-->
@PressF4Respect
How does God affect you?
He created me. An easier question would be, "How does God NOT affect me.
Has God ever chosen to specifically appear in any physical location before (outside of the bible)?
To my knowledge, God has never chosen to specifically appear inside of a bible.
(That was a really weird question)
If the Judeo-Christian god...
Please, I said nothing about any Judeo-Christian god. As there is only one God, He needs no qualification.
...was known all around the world for thousands of years, then how come the vast majority of the world worshipped other deities?
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 - And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Has He ever done this outside of the bible?
Yes. Rom 1:18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?
-->
@ethang5
How does God affect you?He created me. An easier question would be, "How does God NOT affect me.
How do you know he created you?
Has God ever chosen to specifically appear in any physical location before (outside of the bible)?To my knowledge, God has never chosen to specifically appear inside of a bible.(That was a really weird question)
This was not what I meant. Let me rephrase this question:
Is there any non-biblical record of God appearing in any location?
If the Judeo-Christian god...Please, I said nothing about any Judeo-Christian god. As there is only one God, He needs no qualification.
Firstly, the Judeo-Christian god is the one described in the OT and NT of Judaism and Christianity. Hence, if you practice Judaism or Christianity, then you believe in the Judeo-Christian God.
...was known all around the world for thousands of years, then how come the vast majority of the world worshipped other deities?Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Rom 1:22 - Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,Rom 1:23 - And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.Rom 1:24 - Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:Rom 1:25 - Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.Has He ever done this outside of the bible?Yes. Rom 1:18 - For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Rom 1:19 - Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.Rom 1:20 - For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
How is the bible credible?
See how I answered all of your questions without running or dodging?
Good job