There'll never be closure on whether God exists

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 196
--> @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.

--> @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? 
--> @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.












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. 
--> @Mopac
Above. 
--> @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.




 



--> @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".
--> @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? 
--> @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.


--> @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]
--> @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. 

--> @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).
--> @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. 




--> @3RU7AL
It's a case for the logical necessity (NOUMENON).
Are you saying it is necessary for the deistic argument? 

--> @TheRealNihilist
Are you saying it is necessary for the deistic argument? 
The case for a logical-necessity is the only case for DEISM.
--> @3RU7AL
The case for a logical-necessity is the only case for DEISM.
Okay I understand. 

--> @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. 
















--> @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
-->@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?
--> @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.
--> @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.

--> @Mopac
Ultimate reality =/= God

--> @Reece101
Then you are not talking about my God. I call The Ultimate Reality God.
--> @Mopac
I know you do. My ultimate reality is ultimate reality, and I don’t know it, you don’t either.
--> @Reece101
Where does that lead you?