There'll never be closure on whether God exists

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 554
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
 "That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs  no 'thing in itself This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind. " ~ Fredrich Nietzsche
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
If you can't avoid attacking me personslly while you are complaining about me allegedly attacking you personally, you should  probably just keep it to yourself.
Deflection. Next time try and put effort into your comments.

This introduction seemms pretty good.

This shows you have two different standards. Things you don't agree with you give a long winded link to. Things that you do agree with you sum it up with 4 words and a dictionary. This implies you try so hard to go out of your way not to use the same standards when comparing your belief in God and lets take this your defense of your position on nihilism which is a double standard fallacy. Do you have a response to the allegations? 


TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Mopac
 "That there is no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs  no 'thing in itself This alone is Nihilism, and of the most extreme kind. " ~ Fredrich Nietzsche
So here I can simply state I don't confine to the most extreme kind but I won't. I will instead say can you demonstrate to me that I am comparable to the extreme kinds of nihilism? I'll wait. 

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Yet, here you are identifying yourself with the doctrine of negation. I don't want want to talk about you.


Nihilism is atheism, pure and simple. The denial of absolute truth or ultimate reality 

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Mopac
Yet, here you are identifying yourself with the doctrine of negation.
?
Neither I accepted what you said nor did does the link even state that. I am guessing I hit a brick wall in your brain and you have gone through your dialogue tree. 
Nihilism is atheism, pure and simple. The denial of absolute truth or ultimate reality 
Demonstrate how they are inherent to one another.
I'll wait like I'll wait for every single other claim you have yet to demonstrate. At this point there is undeniable "truth" that you are incompetent. Guess some people are too far gone. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As you are a nihilist, it would be foolish of me to try and prove anything to you. It takes an awful lot of denial to come to the nihilistic conclusion. 


Besides, if I did prove something to you and you believed it, you would cease to be a nihilist.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Mopac
As you are a nihilist, it would be foolish of me to try and prove anything to you. It takes an awful lot of denial to come to the nihilistic conclusion. 
Still hasn't answered my questions. Ad-homs and pretty much calls me the denier. Deflecting from his well stale position that God exists because the definitions said so. No what caused the big bang no infinite regression can't be possible angle instead defaults to 3-4 words. This clearly reeks of anti-intellecutalism and note this isn't an ad-hom because it is the best representation of your position. 
Besides, if I did prove something to you and you believed it, you would cease to be a nihilist.
Could I not change my mind? Could I not change my username?

How about you, what would it take for you to state God is not real? 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What you call intellectual is simply creation. The Ultimate Reality is God, not an explanation.

Why is The Ultimate Reality God? Because that is what we mean by God. Can you think of anythingg else more worthy to be called God? Of course you can't,  but it matters little. This is what we mean by God.

There is nothing even comparable to God. I tell you, God can not be circumscribed, not even by the mind. I believe in The Incomprehensible God. The One True God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.












TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
What you call intellectual is simply creation. The Ultimate Reality is God, not an explanation.
So God is not creation in your mind. Okay you have just admitted it is nothing. People who even think about it in their mind are wrong. Glad to know that.
Why is The Ultimate Reality God? Because that is what we mean by God. Can you think of anythingg else more worthy to be called God? Of course you can't,  but it matters little. This is what we mean by God.
You are not demonstrated anything nor providing evidence. I can simply say what you said in the way I want it to be. There is no argument to counter to even talk about. This is just your opinion not supported by anything.

There is nothing even comparable to God. I tell you, God can not be circumscribed, not even by the mind. I believe in The Incomprehensible God. The One True God. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
You can't even lie about willing to change your mind. Why should I be willing to change my mind when you haven't even stated you would or told me how I would go about doing it.

I'll ask another question. What God are you talking about? The multiple Gods of Hindus or the Biblical God. Please tell me how you get to that. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Mopac
Above. 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The God I am talking about is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. I could not deny this God's existence, in fact, because ultimately it is real. What else can be said to be real? Like this? Not like God.

Eternal life is to know The Only True God, and the one sent, Jesus Christ.




 



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Deflecting from his well stale position that God exists because the definitions said so.
Also known as, "the ontological argument".  Spinoza makes an airtight case.

No what caused the big bang no infinite regression can't be possible angle instead defaults to 3-4 words.
Also known as, "the logical necessity".  Kant makes an airtight case.

Unfortunately neither Spinoza's nor Kant's solutions are compatible with the modern concept of "YHWH".
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Also known as, "the ontological argument".  Spinoza makes an airtight case.
Are you saying the argument is good?
Can you present it as well?
Also known as, "the logical necessity".  Kant makes an airtight case.
Are you saying the argument is good?
Can you present the case?
Unfortunately neither Spinoza's nor Kant's solutions are compatible with the modern concept of "YHWH".
So they can't make a case for the current interpretation of the Biblical God? 
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
@TheRealNihilist
Neither of you have an orthodox understanding of our God, so I find these statements from both of you to be presumptuous...



"Unfortunately neither Spinoza's nor Kant's solutions are compatible with the modern concept of "YHWH"."

"So they can't make a case for the current interpretation of the Biblical God?"



Neither of you understand the "modern concept of "YHWH""(Which in itself is a puzzling string of words), nor do any of you understand the Orthodox interpretation of the biblical God.

But I am still interested in hearing 3ru7al's take on Spinoza and Kant proving God.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Also known as, "the ontological argument".  Spinoza makes an airtight case.
Are you saying the argument is good?
Can you present it as well?
Spinoza makes his case in his masterpiece, Ethica Ordine Geometrico Demonstrata. [LINK]

(IFF) god = omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent (AND) (IFF) god = real (THEN) everything that is real must necessarily be god (or parts of god).

This is a purely ontological argument.  You define god, then you link that definition to reality by equating the two, which logically means you've just defined reality as god (and god as reality).

It also works if you examine the Catholic concept of "Ex Nihilo".  (IFF) no-thing existed before god and no-thing existed parallel to god (AND) god is the sole creator of all things (THEN) all things must be created out of god-itself.  That is-to-say, everything must be made of god-stuff, since there is no other material other than god, as per the primary statement.

Also known as, "the logical necessity".  Kant makes an airtight case.
Are you saying the argument is good?
Can you present the case?
Kant makes his case in his masterpiece, Critique of Pure Reason. [LINK] and slightly more in-depth [LINK]

(IFF) you don't know everything (THEN) there are things you don't know.

(IFF) a human mind is incapable of knowing everything (THEN) there are things you will never know.

The things you will never know are NOUMENON.

What happened "before" the Big Bang is NOUMENON.

What is the fundamental mechanism that "causes" phenomenal reality?

NOUMENON.

Can't we reverse engineer what we observe in order to decipher the underlying mechanism?

NOPE.

Unfortunately neither Spinoza's nor Kant's solutions are compatible with the modern concept of "YHWH".
So they can't make a case for the current interpretation of the Biblical God? 
Nobody can.  All definitions of "YHWH" are incoherent.

The closest you get are, as Mopac likes to say, "god is the ultimate reality" (which is NOUMENON).  But Mopac objects to the word NOUMENON.

And even if you define god as NOUMEON (ein sof, magnum mysterium, ultimate reality) it still doesn't explain all that "rule-book" stuff.

I mean, if god is unknowable, then how could bronze age fiction writers compose a rule-book about it? [LINK]
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you don't know everything (THEN) there are things you don't know.

(IFF) a human mind is incapable of knowing everything (THEN) there are things you will never know.
How can this be a case for deism? For all we know there is simply a causal reality before the Big Bang that explains everything without the need for a single entity to start it all. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
(IFF) you don't know everything (THEN) there are things you don't know.

(IFF) a human mind is incapable of knowing everything (THEN) there are things you will never know.
How can this be a case for deism? For all we know there is simply a causal reality before the Big Bang that explains everything without the need for a single entity to start it all. 
It's a case for the logical necessity (NOUMENON).

There must be some-thing (not a no-thing) and theists try to argue that this logically-necessary-some-thing is their version of god (although it only "proves" a DEISTIC god (ontologically) because this argument does not make any attempt to tie the logical necessity to their particular god(s).
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
....still doesn't explain all that "rule-book" stuff.

I mean, if god is unknowable, then how could bronze age fiction writers compose a rule-book about it?

The purpose of the law of Moses and the whole covenent was to raise up a nation of priests with The Law of God written on their hearts. 

God's essence is unknowable, but we know God through the uncreated energy that fills all things.

Let me put it another way. You don't need to know The Truth in order to know how to direct yourself towards it. 




TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
It's a case for the logical necessity (NOUMENON).
Are you saying it is necessary for the deistic argument? 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you saying it is necessary for the deistic argument? 
The case for a logical-necessity is the only case for DEISM.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@3RU7AL
The case for a logical-necessity is the only case for DEISM.
Okay I understand. 

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Deism is simply the Latin equivalent of the Greek word "Theism".

Deism became a popular way during the so called  "enlightenment " era for those who believed in God but not necessarily any religion or tradition about God. Because of this, the word has been taken to exclusively refer to belief in God but no religion rather than this being a particular form of deism.

Theism and Deism are the same thing.

Hint

Greek word for God is Theos. Theism. Get it?
Latin word for God is Deity. Deism. Get it?

An argument for the existence of God would be a different argument than making a case for say, Christianity, Islam,.etc. 
















ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no cosmic source { @ }, only local ignorance { * ^ * }.

..."If our Universe happened to be locked in an eternal heartbeat of expansion and collapse, black holes would leave an impression. And it could look just like a number of swirls recently detected in the faint echo of light at the edge of space."....

Our finite, occupied space Universe is the only perpetual-motion-machine ergo a synergeticaly combination of structural { /\ closed } and systemic { Y open } integrity.



14 days later

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->@Fallaneze

There'll never be closure on whether God exists.
It's an open ended question and we will never truly know the answer. 
You are letting yourself be fooled by an illusion.

For very many people, the question does get settled. But new people are always coming into the system.

Closure happens to individuals, not to groups. Your implication is that anything short of total and instantaneous closure is not closure."

Very many people find closure and truly know the answer. Would "closure" to you be everyone coming to a similar conclusion at the same time? Is that even possible?
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I whole heartedly disagree.

The Ultimate Reality by necessity exists. The position that there is no ultimate reality has no ground to stand on.
There is an ultimate reality, and you don’t know it. None of us do.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
There is an ultimate reality, and you don’t know it. None of us do.

"The perfect mind is the one that through genuine faith knows in supreme ignorance the supremely unknowable,  and gazing on the universe of his handiwork has received from God comprehensive knowledge of His providence and judgement in it, as far as allowable to men." ~Saint Maximus the confessor.


We know that The Ultimate Reality exists, as you can even say. So we have the existence of God as common ground at least.

Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
Ultimate reality =/= God

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
Then you are not talking about my God. I call The Ultimate Reality God.
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I know you do. My ultimate reality is ultimate reality, and I don’t know it, you don’t either.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
Where does that lead you?