God is real

Author: Vaarka ,

Posts

Total: 60
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 695
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Vaarka




Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,153
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
--> @SkepticalOne
Behold, I come quickly; Revelation 22:12-14 

Lol
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
By definition God is real because God is....


The Truth

The Supreme Being

The Ultimate Reality.


Being real is intrinsic to every one of these definitions, so if your conception of God is not real, that doesn't disprove God that disproves your conception of God.


Meanwhile, the atheist yells through a megaphone on the street corner... "There is no truth! The truth is a lie! Prove to me it is true that there is such a thing as truth! I believe in reason!"

Of course, anyone with any real sense and a love of reason can see this is utter madness and complete folly. I would rather see the atheist turn away from their folly than to be consumed by their hatred and delusion.

As they crucify the one who saves them, that one says, "Forgive them, they know not what they are doing."

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Mopac
"Dragon" and "Pixie" are in the dictionary too, but it takes more than a definition to legitimately suggest (much less validate) the existence of these things or gods. 

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
Being real are not intrinsic to the meaning of those words.

Being real is the defining characteristic of God. Thats what Ultimate Reality means. Thats what Supreme Being means.



Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,153
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
--> @Mopac
Is your god a "who"? Or, is your god an "it"?  
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Mopac
Your argument (if it can be called an argument) is pure semantics and equivocation.  We already have words for the "Truth" and the "Ultimate Reality" (truth and reality) and your conflation of these with "God" is arbitrary and meaningless.

You'll need something more than a dictionary to establish the existence of gods.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Outplayz
I was wondering the same thing.  
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
In actuality, you are the one who is arbitrarily rejecting the meaning of the concept.

You are arguing as if I'm just making this stuff up. No, I'm not. Pardon me if that makes you wrong. There is no shame in being wrong. There is shame in persisting in your error out of pride.



Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Outplayz @SkepticalOne
There is no respected theologian alive or dead who believes that God is a "he" or a "she".

Do you think Truth has a gender?

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Mopac
If god is not a "who, then you accept god as an "it", yes? If so, do you consider yourself to be a pantheist?

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
No, I do not worship the universe as God.

Panentheist might be more accurate, but I identify as a Monotheist.

I would not call God an "it" any more than I would call The Truth an "it"


Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,153
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
--> @Mopac
Well, at least you aren't as far off your meds as a theist would be thinking there is a sky daddy. I believe in an infinite intelligence, or that this form of "god" would be most possible. This would surely make it an "it"... it just is. It's everything. Skep already asked my second question, but you said you wouldn't be a pantheist. Technically... this infinite intelligence is everything, it is the universe, so pantheism would be closest description of what we are talking about. I forget however if pantheism gives any specific attributes to this universal god, if so... i wouldn't say that is accurate. An infinite intelligence would just be everything and at the same time be nothing. 

I can jive with that definition of an absolute infinite. I just don't understand why you stick with theism and/or monotheism. Both implicate a god with attributes and/or a 'who.' You say most respected theologians don't do this, but they do. God created the flood, god manifested itself as jesus, etc. This isn't something an infinite intelligence would do. It would likely be indifferent since it knows every beginning and every end. It is everything and nothing. So on. The way theist explain it is more consistent with a "who."   
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,153
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
--> @SkepticalOne
You beat me to it lol. I wonder what you think of his remark that "respected" theists don't describe god as a "who" bc i surely think they do. 
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 786
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @Outplayz
Well, like you said, it's false unless he meant to say they are not respected by him!

Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Outplayz @SkepticalOne
I didn't say that respected theologians didn't use gender pronouns, I said that they don't assign God a gender.

I understand calling God "He" or "Father" might give this impression, but even the ones who do this acknowledge that God is not a male or female.

I am not a pantheist. A pantheist believes the universe is God. I do not believe the universe is God.

If we were to use merriam webster, the universe is defined as...


"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"

This makes the universe contingent on observation and postulation. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is not contingent on observation or postulation.

The universe is creation. Pantheism is a form of paganism. As I said, what I believe is closer to panentheism than pantheism, but I identify as a monotheist.

As to why I don't discard the label? Because I am describing the monotheist position, which you claim to understand but I don't believe you actually do.

The monotheist position is that God is The Supreme Being. Everything else follows from this understanding that God is The Truth.






vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
1
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
1
3
Before humans came along and invented gods no gods existed, gods are contingent on humans.
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @vagabond
Except God is not a god, God is The Truth, and The Truth predates humans.
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
1
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
1
3
--> @Mopac
So your imaginary god is not a god, you're quite confused and that probably results from you using definitions of words erroneously. Use the correct definitions and even though your imaginary god will disappear you will be less confused when attempting a conversation with humans.
Vaarka
Vaarka's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 695
2
1
5
Vaarka's avatar
Vaarka
2
1
5
If you have a tattoo, you support child abuse and slavery
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @vagabond
Oxford says "Supreme Being"

Merriam Webster says "The Supreme and/or Ultimate Reality"

Ancient theologians use these same terms.


You are clearly the one using the wrong definitions. 

The Truth is God, and this is no innovation of my own, there is thousands of years of tradition backing me up.

So you are clearly wrong. There is no shame in being wrong, but there is shame in being stubborn in one's error.

409 days later

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,199
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Vaarka
If you have a tattoo, you support child abuse and slavery

I was looking at old threads and this caught my eye. Your conclusion does not seem to follow logically. What detectable correlation do tattoos share with these two social ills?
Harikrish
Harikrish's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 550
2
1
2
Harikrish's avatar
Harikrish
2
1
2
--> @secularmerlin
I was looking at old threads and this caught my eye. Your conclusion does not seem to follow logically. What detectable correlation do tattoos share with these two social ills?

Why don't you participate in current threads that deals with biblical scholarship and why Jesus was crucified and not sacrificed?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,199
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Harikrish
In many cases it is specifically to avoid you.