What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Author: OntologicalSpider ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 294
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @PGA2.0
    I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind?
    Yes, your mind.

    You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence?
    All minds. And yes, my mind is necessary.

    I say they will exist if you do not.
    I do and will always exist. Existence is not the same as survival. Existence is the quintessential ontological expression; survival is a stall to corporeal harm or decay. 

    I will still perceive and experience the physical.
    Not without your mind, thereby eliding the premise of my challenge.

    So, how can one know? On the impossibility of the contrary. Some things are just plain illogical and irrational to think. They make no sense. They go against what coherent.
    Do not simply assert that which you do not comprehend as incoherent/irrational. Demonstrate the incoherence/irrationality.

    Even so, you are welcome to think such nonsense.
    Have we come to this point where one is indulging "nonsense"? Suffices to say that there is something to be said for one who spouts "nonsense." There's also something to be said for someone to call that with which one disagrees "nonsense" especially when there's a lack of comprehension and counterfactual.

    Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary.
    And your mind is not subjective, I presume?

    I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself. 
    Non sequitur.

    The inconsistency of your thinking is troubling to me who claims I exist apart from you
    I extend my previous statement. You're also imputing a straw man argument.

    No math, no logic - how so? God (in three Persons), is that necessary mindfulness that we originate from and owe our being. How is that irrational? From the living comes life. From conscious beings come other conscious beings. From the loving come other loving beings. From personal beings come other personal beings. From intelligent mindful beings come other intelligent, mindful beings. Do you ever witness otherwise? 
    I extend my previous statement.

    What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality.
    Then demonstrate physicality without the use of your mind; you can't use logic, science, math, language or words. I wish you luck.

    So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not,
    Can you confirm that? How would you go about this confirmation if you have to both isolate and nullify the use of your mind?

    or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself?
    Non sequitur.

    If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?
    Both introspection and that for which I give myself "credit" are irrelevant.

    What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality?
    All minds.

    Is it yours alone?
    As it concerns my subjective experience, yes.

    That is just my point, you don't know Him.
    You're repeating what I just told you.

    Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God,
    Why? Why is it logically necessary that God exists in exclusion to all others?

    and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible.
    What does that have to do with a logical necessity?

    I state that based on many pieces of evidence and will gladly argue for this God against your belief. Is that sufficient?
    Against my belief? I do not dispute the existence of God. (In fact, I on several occasions demonstrated the existence of God.) So against which "belief" would you argue?

    How do you test for Tien's existence?
    Perception.

    What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists?
    The writings and teachings of Confucius.

    What is that

    and how do you verify it is true?
    Through the fact that it was believed and is believed; that it was perceived and is perceived.

    If your god is not a personal being, as you state, how did you get this "Mandate of Heaven and Confucius?" Did Confucius just invent it?
    "My" God  once again does not register. And you'd have to ask Confucius about the origin of  the Mandate. I 'd presume Tien. It would be no less "invented" than the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran.

    Because I believe the evidence points to the Jewish Scriptures as related to the Christian Scriptures and speak of the same God, just in a greater revelation.
    What is this evidence and what is its nature?

    Really? What is Tien then? I will stop using the pronouns "he" or "she" and call Tien "it."
    Tien is a deity.

    How do you account for consciousness and personhood if Tien is not personal?
    Why would one attribute consciousness and personhood to Tien or any other deity? Aren't you just projecting?

    What is it, then?
    God is God; Tien is Tien. "My" has nothing to do with it.

    Are you a pantheist or panentheist then? 
    No.

    It matters a lot. Is your god real (exists) or a figment of your imagination.  
    You still haven't answered my question. What do you mean by actual? Material or does the distinction not matter?

    Do words have meaning or have you lost the law of identity to your vocabulary? (I.e., A=A)
    Yes, words have meaning, and no, the law of identity doesn't apply to vocabulary.

    Words convey a specific meaning.
    No, they do not.  A single word can have several meanings. Case in point: "mine." Tell me the meaning of this word. (Note: I did not provide context, so be cautious.)

    They represent and are necessary for communication. Don't blur the difference between a house and a factory without qualifying what you mean. House =/= factory. House = house. Factory = factory.
    Your proposition is sufficient as long as you substantiate it. Demonstrate that a House =/= Factory. That is, demonstrate that the description of a house excludes a factory, and vice versa.

    A house is a living abode. We don't usually have our abode in factories. A house has a place to eat, a place to sleep and a place to s_ _ t. A factory does not usually have a place to sleep. A word that describes the place we sleep is called a bedroom when it is walled and separated from other areas. Yes, some people do not have such rooms. I speak of what is common.
    Demonstrating a logical contradiction has nothing to do with your impressions. You're not asked to speak to that which is "common;" you're asked to speak to that which is descriptive. And thus far, you have not done this. You're merely projecting your opinion as description.

    A factory does not usually have bedrooms. Houses usually do have bedrooms.
    A bedroom is a place where people sleep. Do you really intend to extend this argument to its logical conclusion?

    I have not argued a building called a house cannot ALSO act as a factory or visa versa. To call a house a factory would be adding to our normal understanding of what a factory is and such distinction needs to be qualified since what is meant is not in the standard meaning of the word factory, to call it a house. The definition of a house is not the same as that of a factory. To call the two the same needs qualification. If the BUILDING you call home also is being used as a factory I have no beef about that. 
    Both a house and a factory are buildings. That's a non-issue.  A house can be and is used to produce goods. A factory can be used as a dwelling and/or place to sleep. Your projections of usual behavior has no bearing on that fact. And that's my point. If you're going to state that I've made a logical contradiction, then you're going to have to do more than just state that which you think is usually done. So, I'll make it simple: can you or can you not find a description of either a house or factory that precludes one from the other?

    I appeal to common sense.
    Yes, that would be another word for it, and that would still be logically fallacious reasoning.

    What I am saying is don't blur the distinction that gives words meaning (in context) without qualifying what you mean. 
    I'm only "blurring" the distinctions you've projected, not that which is part of their (house and factory) descriptions.


  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Athias
    Thanks for replying!

    I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind?
    Yes, your mind.
    My mind is not necessary. The physical would still exist if I did not. It would just not be known by me. 

    You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence?
    All minds. And yes, my mind is necessary.
    All minds, yet if you did not exist I would still be aware of the physical, so your mind is not necessary for its existence. If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence. It was here before either of us existed, so our minds are not necessary for its existence. Yet without a necessary mind - the eternal God - would the physical universe exist?

    I say they will exist if you do not.
    I do and will always exist. Existence is not the same as survival. Existence is the quintessential ontological expression; survival is a stall to corporeal harm or decay. 
    Yet, there was a time when you did not. According to your profile, granting it is true, you were born 01 January 1930 (that makes you more of an antique than I am) so you had a beginning. Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)? If you say no, are you (meaning me) the only person in the universe and are your (am I) playing games with yourself (myself) out of shear loneliness?

    I will still perceive and experience the physical.
    Not without your mind, thereby eliding the premise of my challenge.
    But the distinction is whether either of our minds are necessary to experience the physical and I know that I would still experience it without you existing. I'm sure you believe the same about me. Yes, my mind is necessary for ME to experience the physical, but not the necessary mind for the existence of the physical. 

    So, how can one know? On the impossibility of the contrary. Some things are just plain illogical and irrational to think. They make no sense. They go against what is coherent.
    Do not simply assert that which you do not comprehend as incoherent/irrational. Demonstrate the incoherence/irrationality.
    I'm not just asserting it. It is a logical impossibility. Some things are just illogical to think and thinking them makes no sense.

    I.e.,

    One apple plus one apply equals three apples.

    A "dog" is a word we use (it represents something) to describe a particular type of animal. When we speak of a dog we are not speaking at the same time of a cat. A=A. It has its own identity.  A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat. 

    Something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in reference to the same thing. It is either true or it is false. It is either true that it is raining outside my house at this minute or it is not true. It cannot be both true and false at the same time. 

    Truth is not false.

    ***

    There are a few examples that came to mind. 

    Even so, you are welcome to think such nonsense.
    Have we come to this point where one is indulging "nonsense"? Suffices to say that there is something to be said for one who spouts "nonsense." There's also something to be said for someone to call that with which one disagrees "nonsense" especially when there's a lack of comprehension and counterfactual.

    If you think such things that go against the laws of logic, yes. The laws of logic are necessary for meaningful conversation.

    Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary.
    And your mind is not subjective, I presume?
    Oh yes, it is. I am not relying on my mind alone but on the mind of God, in as much as I understand His mind. When I correctly think and interpret His communications I think in an objective manner. When I correctly think logically, I think in a rational way. 

    I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself. 
    Non sequitur.
    I'm questioning whether you think you are all that exists? If you are then I will quit arguing with you. There will be no point. You win! You always win when you argue against yourself! Even when you lose you win or at least your ultra-ego does.

    The inconsistency of your thinking is troubling to me who claims I exist apart from you
    I extend my previous statement. You're also imputing a straw man argument.
    I'm trying to find out what you think. You are playing games. I'm being perfectly honest with you now. I'm expressing my thinking as it comes out of my mind. You state things that seem illogical or at least inconsistent. You seem to think that your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe yet if you did not exist I would still perceive it. 

    No math, no logic - how so? God (in three Persons), is that necessary mindfulness that we originate from and owe our being. How is that irrational? From the living comes life. From conscious beings come other conscious beings. From the loving come other loving beings. From personal beings come other personal beings. From intelligent mindful beings come other intelligent, mindful beings. Do you ever witness otherwise? 
    I extend my previous statement.
    Again, it boils down to the question of if you did not exist would the universe still exist? I say that based on my experience it would. My parents are both dead, but the universe is still here. It did not depend on their existence for it to have being.

    What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality.
    Then demonstrate physicality without the use of your mind; you can't use logic, science, math, language or words. I wish you luck.
    I can't without using my mind, but my mind is not necessary for its existence because whether I exist or not it would still be here. Whether I existed or not, words, language, maths would still be evident to those who still exist unless you think that you are the only one in existence, then I leave you to argue further with yourself. There is nothing further I can say to you since you know it anyway. (What colour socks am I wearing?)

    So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not,
    Can you confirm that? How would you go about this confirmation if you have to both isolate and nullify the use of your mind?
    I confirm it by experience. I see that it did not depend on the various people I know who have died. They were not necessary for the physical to exist. It exists apart from them. They were only necessary to experience it. 

    or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself?
    Non sequitur.
    More games!

    If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?
    Both introspection and that for which I give myself "credit" are irrelevant.
    Once you say you are necessary for the physical existence of the universe I take unbridge with that. I say its existence does not depend on you perceiving it. Once you deny that it leaves me at the point where I realize I cannot discuss this with you. 

    What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality?
    All minds.
    If your mind did not exist would the universe still physically exist to other minds, or is your mind the only mind?

    Is it yours alone?
    As it concerns my subjective experience, yes.
    No, that is not the question. It is not about your subjective experience but about whether you believe the universe would exist for others if you did not. Do you believe there are any others? Or is this all about you?

    That is just my point, you don't know Him.
    You're repeating what I just told you.
    And because you don't know Him you are wrong about Him. 

    Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God,
    Why? Why is it logically necessary that God exists in exclusion to all others?
    Because every other god contradicts. To establish this all I would have to do is get you to describe your god and what you think that god is like. I have already seen that the god you talk about is not the same God I believe in. Thus, logically, one of us is wrong in our belief. That is a law of logic. It states that two contrary things cannot both be true at the same time concerning the same thing. 

    and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible.
    What does that have to do with a logical necessity?
    He meets the requirements of what is necessary to know about origins.


  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @PGA2.0
    My mind is not necessary. The physical would still exist if I did not. It would just not be known by me. 
    You cannot confirm anything about your nonexistence because you do exist. You are making bald assertions based on assumptions. You "assume" that there's a physical without the mind.

    All minds, yet if you did not exist I would still be aware of the physical, so your mind is not necessary for its existence.
    You're entertaining a condition that is not logical. Once again: I do and will always exist; existence is not the same as survival.

    If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence.
    Yes, because my mind in my own experience is operative and necessary, just as yours is. This does not inform and independent existence outside of our minds' rationalization. The minute you share your experiences with me, my mind automatically transmutes it and conforms it to my perceptions. Our perceptions have facilitated a standardization of communication which is--and this is important--common, not independent.

    It was here before either of us existed, so our minds are not necessary for its existence.
    How have you confirmed this?

    Yet without a necessary mind - the eternal God - would the physical universe exist?
    Physical is a manifestation of perception. The mind rationalizes and informs perception. Any scrutiny outside the bounds of the mind is epistemologically insignificant.

    Yet, there was a time when you did not.
    Can you confirm this?

    According to your profile, granting it is true, you were born 01 January 1930 (that makes you more of an antique than I am) so you had a beginning.
    My sentience had a beginning. (And my profile is an exaggeration save my native language and country of origin.)

    Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)? If you say no, are you (meaning me) the only person in the universe and are your (am I) playing games with yourself (myself) out of shear loneliness?

    Yes, it was just as much of an expression of the perceptions and mental faculties of those who preceded me. And my "loneliness" is none of your concern. We are discussing mind over matter, so to speak, not the emotions you allege I have.

    But the distinction is whether either of our minds are necessary to experience the physical and I know that I would still experience it without you existing.
    Non sequitur. No one has argued that I'm necessary for you to have an experience, albeit physical. It is being argued that the "mind" is necessary. And you have a mind.

    I'm sure you believe the same about me.
    I cannot perceive you without the use of my mind. Your existence ndependent of my subjective experience is insignificant as it concerns me. That is not to say, that it bears to no significance to you.

    I'm not just asserting it. It is a logical impossibility. Some things are just illogical to think and thinking them makes no sense.

    I.e.,

    One apple plus one apply equals three apples.

    How is it a logical impossibility? One plus one equals two so long as the descriptions of each number are defined to make that statement true. Change the definitions and it's no longer an impossibility. And words, numbers,  and descriptions are, as you had put it earlier, "figments of the imagination." There are no material characteristics or chemical properties to numbers, so do they exist?


    A "dog" is a word we use (it represents something) to describe a particular type of animal. When we speak of a dog we are not speaking at the same time of a cat. A=A. It has its own identity.  A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat. 

    Something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in reference to the same thing. It is either true or it is false. It is either true that it is raining outside my house at this minute or it is not true. It cannot be both true and false at the same time. 

    Truth is not false.
    Non sequitur.

    If you think such things that go against the laws of logic, yes. The laws of logic are necessary for meaningful conversation.
    It suffices to state that I'm intimately familiar with the rules of logic. Demonstrate which rules I'm breaking. And do so while not projecting your non sequiturs onto my arguments.

    Oh yes, it is. I am not relying on my mind alone but on the mind of God, in as much as I understand His mind.
    Hence your understanding of God's mind is subjective since you decided to qualify your understanding by prefacing it with, "in as much as..."

    When I correctly think and interpret His communications I think in an objective manner.
    No you are not. To your own admission, your understanding of his mind is limited by default.

    I'm questioning whether you think you are all that exists?
    And this question is based on a non-sequitur. Hence, I haven't answered it because it would presume that I'm making the argument you allege I'm making.

    I'm trying to find out what you think.
    No you're not. You're projecting what you think.

    You are playing games
    I do not play games in serious discussions.

    You state things that seem illogical or at least inconsistent. You seem to think that your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe yet if you did not exist I would still perceive it. 
    Seem is not an argument; Yes my mind is necessary for and informs my subjective perception of the physical, just as your mind is necessary for and informs your subjective perception of the physical.

    Again, it boils down to the question of if you did not exist would the universe still exist? I say that based on my experience it would. My parents are both dead, but the universe is still here. It did not depend on their existence for it to have being.
    No, this is a question that you are projecting. Once again, you are making references to survival, not existence (i.e. your parents' death state.)

    I can't without using my mind, but my mind is not necessary for its existence because whether I exist or not it would still be here. Whether I existed or not, words, language, maths would still be evident to those who still exist unless you think that you are the only one in existence, then I leave you to argue further with yourself.
    You cannot perceive your own nonexistence. Nonexistence is imperceptible. You would know "nothing" because you'd be "nothing." You're only making assumptions about that which lies outside of your mind; you have not confirmed this; you have not controlled for it. You merely reference a commonality in communication (i.e. logic, math, science, etc.) as independent without demonstration. You're speaking to the "intersubjective," not the "objective."

    I confirm it by experience. I see that it did not depend on the various people I know who have died. They were not necessary for the physical to exist. It exists apart from them. They were only necessary to experience it. 
    What experience? And how did you control for that experience independent of your own mind? Once again, death is not the same as non-existence.

    Once you say you are necessary for the physical existence of the universe I take unbridge with that.
    This is projection. Quote me verbatim.

    If your mind did not exist would the universe still physically exist to other minds, or is your mind the only mind?
    My mind is not the only mind; but this has no significance independent of my mind, because its mere notion is produced and informed by mind.

    No, that is not the question. It is not about your subjective experience but about whether you believe the universe would exist for others if you did not.
    Your questions have been based on projections and non sequiturs. I cannot perceive my own nonexistence, and thus I do not offer rationalizations premised on the aforestated because nonexistence is irrational.

    Do you believe there are any others? Or is this all about you?
    Yes, and yes.

    And because you don't know Him you are wrong about Him. 
    How have I been wrong about him. Quote me verbatim.

    Because every other god contradicts. To establish this all I would have to do is get you to describe your god and what you think that god is like.
    So God's existence--or that of any god--is necessarily informed by his description?

    I have already seen that the god you talk about is not the same God I believe in.
    I've been talking about two gods, so to which one are you referring? Tien? Or God?

    Thus, logically, one of us is wrong in our belief. That is a law of logic.
    Making reference to the qualifier, "logically" does not mean you're employing logic.

    It states that two contrary things cannot both be true at the same time concerning the same thing. 
    So I must ask again: why is it logically necessary that God exists to the exclusion of all others? How is the existence of God contrary to that of Tien's?

    He meets the requirements of what is necessary to know about origins.
    What are those requirements?







  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Athias @PGA2.0
    Enjoying and loving it.

    PGA, I can vouch for Athias, he is dead serious and does not play games. But it's his very intellectual rigidity that makes him vulnerable. Trust your instincts.

    Entertaining and enlightening exchange.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Athias

    What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality.
    Then demonstrate physicality without the use of your mind; you can't use logic, science, math, language or words. I wish you luck.
    You miss the point and are overthinking. I can demonstrate physicality without using YOUR mind, so your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical. And you can explain and show physicality without the existence of my mind, so physicality is not dependent on my mind thinking it.

    So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not,
    Can you confirm that? How would you go about this confirmation if you have to both isolate and nullify the use of your mind?
    If you did not exist, I could still show other mindful beings that it still hurts to get run over by a speeding bus or for me to hit another mindful being with a hammer, causing a contusion as a minimal consequence.

    or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself?
    Non sequitur.
    You seem to be suggesting that nothing exists if your mind does not exist since your mind is the necessary mind for it to exist. It is for you but not me and without your mind existing the physical universe still exists, so your mind is not necessary for its existence. I'm following through on such thinking. If it does not follow then explain to me what I'm asking you. I do not see your mind as the necessary mind for its existence unless you are saying that only your mind exists. You see, if you did not exist but I did would the physical universe still exist? If so, it does not depend on your mind for its existence. Likewise, if I did not exist would you still be able to perceive the physical universe? If so, it does not depend on my mind for its existence. Thus, my mind is not necessary for its existence. Now, if no mind existed, there would be no one to know it existed, thus would it exist? If so, how did the physical make it possible for us thinking, conscious beings who are aware of its existence unless the physical universe is created in itself by a necessary mind who in turn creates other limited mindful beings? That is what we continually find when we examine the universe. Mindful processes are found to be in operation that we discover, not invent. They existed before we discovered them.


    If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?
    Both introspection and that for which I give myself "credit" are irrelevant.
    Then why is your mind the necessary mind for the existence of the physical since you believe your mind is needed for there to be a physical reality? It is irrelevant.

    What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality?
    All minds.
    No, that is not true. Some mindful beings no longer exist or are non-functioning in this physical realm. Thus, not all minds are necessary for its physiology.

    Is it yours alone?
    As it concerns my subjective experience, yes.
    I'm not interested in a conversation about your subjective experience but about what is necessary for physicality. Your subjective experience is not necessary. Without it I would still be experiencing the physical. Thus it continues to exist even if you do not. The only difference is you would not be aware of it. 

    That is just my point, you don't know Him.
    You're repeating what I just told you.
    Yes, your ignorance of Him distorts who He is. Instead of worshiping the Creator, you worship a graven image, what you suppose God to be, not what He is. You manufacture God based on another subjective beings (Confucius) feelings of God. What makes him right about God?

    Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God,
    Why? Why is it logically necessary that God exists in exclusion to all others?
    Three reasons: The law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.

    and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible.
    What does that have to do with a logical necessity?
    He has what is necessary, a personal God, an omniscient God, an unchanging God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God, a benevolent God, a revealed God. He gives us verification. How does Confucius, other than his subjective writings and musings about God reveal God?

    I state that based on many pieces of evidence and will gladly argue for this God against your belief. Is that sufficient?
    Against my belief? I do not dispute the existence of God. (In fact, I on several occasions demonstrated the existence of God.) So against which "belief" would you argue?
    Yes, I argue against yours as found in Confucius, based on the biblical God's revelation. The biblical God who is knowable and has made Himself known is my reason.


    How do you test for Tien's existence?
    Perception.
    As I said before, each perception is different. My understanding of God is different than yours. One of us is most definitely wrong since we understand God differently.

    What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists?
    The writings and teachings of Confucius.
    Confucius was a man. What makes him infallible or even correct about God?

    Again, written by ONE man. Why should he be believed?

    and how do you verify it is true?
    Through the fact that it was believed and is believed; that it was perceived and is perceived.
    People believe all kinds of things that are not true. What are the internal pieces of evidence that what is said is true?


    If your god is not a personal being, as you state, how did you get this "Mandate of Heaven and Confucius?" Did Confucius just invent it?
    "My" God  once again does not register. And you'd have to ask Confucius about the origin of  the Mandate. I 'd presume Tien. It would be no less "invented" than the Bible, Torah, or Qu'ran.
    There you have it. I can't ask Confucius. You presume. I'm asking for your evidence that your particular belief is a reasonable belief.

    The Bible has many verifiable proofs; one of the most reasonable is prophecy. Another is the unity of the Bible. Each of the 66 writings written by around forty different authors, presents a typology of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is spoken of God in the OT is spoken of Jesus in the NT! There are at least eight NT writers that claim 1st-hand knowledge of witnessing Jesus and His resurrection.

    How many 1st-hand witnesses were there that Confucius could cite regarding Tien?

    Because I believe the evidence points to the Jewish Scriptures as related to the Christian Scriptures and speak of the same God, just in a greater revelation.
    What is this evidence and what is its nature?
    The 66 writings I spoke of a few paragraphs ago.

    Really? What is Tien then? I will stop using the pronouns "he" or "she" and call Tien "it."
    Tien is a deity.
    What does that mean? Is Tien a person? If so, describe Tien's personality.

    How do you account for consciousness and personhood if Tien is not personal?
    Why would one attribute consciousness and personhood to Tien or any other deity? Aren't you just projecting?
    Why? Because we are personal beings. How does personhood come from the impersonal? How does consciousness come from that which is devoid of it? How does agency come from something devoid of intent. You have to be mindful to have intent. If Tien is not personal, I want to know how personhood originates.

    Are you saying Tien is not a personal being? If so, your god difference from the biblical God. Thus, logically one of us is wrong in our perception of God and I say that it is you. 

    What is it, then?
    God is God; Tien is Tien. "My" has nothing to do with it.

    That means nothing. It is a tautology. You have said nothing meaningful.
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Athias


    Are you a pantheist or panentheist then? 
    No.
    Then God is a personal being and separate from creation. Is God then monotheistic or pluralistic?

    It matters a lot. Is your god real (exists) or a figment of your imagination.  
    You still haven't answered my question. What do you mean by actual? Material or does the distinction not matter?
    I mean God is something outside of yourself who exists without you inventing Him/God, or existing just because you accept another subjective person's invention. He is real, not invented but actual, not a figment of your mind or a projection from another person's mind but actual regardless of your mind.

    Do words have meaning or have you lost the law of identity to your vocabulary? (I.e., A=A)
    Yes, words have meaning, and no, the law of identity doesn't apply to vocabulary.
    So "dog" is the definition of a horse!!!

    Vocabulary gives the word meaning in a context, a combination of alphabetic symbols to describe something specific. Depending on how you use that word in context gives it specific meaning.

    Words convey a specific meaning.
    No, they do not.  A single word can have several meanings. Case in point: "mine." Tell me the meaning of this word. (Note: I did not provide context, so be cautious.)
    In context words convey specific mean or else you would not be able to understand me. You know when I say I'm green with envy I am usually speaking figuratively, not speaking of my physical being as being green. You know when I say the grass at my house is green I am usually speaking of the physical lawn at my house.

    They represent and are necessary for communication. Don't blur the difference between a house and a factory without qualifying what you mean. House =/= factory. House = house. Factory = factory.
    Your proposition is sufficient as long as you substantiate it. Demonstrate that a House =/= Factory. That is, demonstrate that the description of a house excludes a factory, and vice versa.
    You are the one blurring the difference. You think that just because you can think it, then it makes it true. That is the message you convey throughout this dialogue. That, my friend, is the definition of a relativist. Relativism doesn't work successfully in the real world.

    ***

    Your proposition is sufficient as long as you substantiate it. Demonstrate that a House =/= Factory. That is, demonstrate that the description of a house excludes a factory, and vice versa.

    A house is a living abode. We don't usually have our abode in factories. A house has a place to eat, a place to sleep and a place to s_ _ t. A factory does not usually have a place to sleep. A word that describes the place we sleep is called a bedroom when it is walled and separated from other areas. Yes, some people do not have such rooms. I speak of what is common.
    Demonstrating a logical contradiction has nothing to do with your impressions. You're not asked to speak to that which is "common;" you're asked to speak to that which is descriptive. And thus far, you have not done this. You're merely projecting your opinion as description.
    It is you who are projecting. You are blurring the difference between a house and a factory without first qualifying it by context.

    A factory does not usually have bedrooms. Houses usually do have bedrooms.
    A bedroom is a place where people sleep. Do you really intend to extend this argument to its logical conclusion?
    Sure. It is ONE of the distinctions that usually separate houses and factories. Some houses may qualify as a factory, and some factories qualify as a home (such as a factory ship in a whaling fleet), but it is not usual. People do not usually live or sleep at a factory with their families. Homes usually house families.

    I have not argued a building called a house cannot ALSO act as a factory or visa versa. To call a house a factory would be adding to our normal understanding of what a factory is and such distinction needs to be qualified since what is meant is not in the standard meaning of the word factory, to call it a house. The definition of a house is not the same as that of a factory. To call the two the same needs qualification. If the BUILDING you call home also is being used as a factory I have no beef about that. 
    Both a house and a factory are buildings. That's a non-issue.  A house can be and is used to produce goods. A factory can be used as a dwelling and/or place to sleep. Your projections of usual behavior has no bearing on that fact. And that's my point. If you're going to state that I've made a logical contradiction, then you're going to have to do more than just state that which you think is usually done. So, I'll make it simple: can you or can you not find a description of either a house or factory that precludes one from the other?
    Can you find one that includes both? Take a standard dictionary, whichever you like, and prove your case. Prove that the definition of a house is the same as that of a factory. 

    I appeal to common sense.
    Yes, that would be another word for it, and that would still be logically fallacious reasoning.
    I have qualified my meaning.

    What I am saying is don't blur the distinction that gives words meaning (in context) without qualifying what you mean. 
    I'm only "blurring" the distinctions you've projected, not that which is part of their (house and factory) descriptions.
    No, you have blurred the standard definitions found in dictionaries without qualification. Your relativism say, "I call something what it is and that makes it what it is." Thus, to you, a house can be the same thing as a factory or a snake can be the same thing as a dog. You just invent a meaning then insist it is what it is because you believe it, exactly what you do with God too. You just invent a god and say that god is the real God when that god does not comply to the real God if you do not believe it to be so. That is why I ask you for evidence that God is who you say God is.  
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Athias

    My mind is not necessary. The physical would still exist if I did not. It would just not be known by me. 
    You cannot confirm anything about your nonexistence because you do exist. You are making bald assertions based on assumptions. You "assume" that there's a physical without the mind.d
    Even though I cannot confirm nything without my existing, you can while you exist. Either that, or one of us is having a conversation with ourselves.  Does my non-existence mean that nothing of the physical universe exists? I thought you would agree the physical still exists since you would still exist, would you not? Or does you existing depend on me existence? That seems to be what you are saying. If I die would you still exist? Am I the necessary being that grants you your existence? If so, your argument from before that you are that necessary being is void. 

    All minds, yet if you did not exist I would still be aware of the physical, so your mind is not necessary for its existence.
    You're entertaining a condition that is not logical. Once again: I do and will always exist; existence is not the same as survival.
    How is it not logical. Please back up your thinking instead of just asserting. 

    Are you saying that you will still exist in the physical or earthly realm when you die, other than being dust or ashes? When you die, would you still exist in this realm as a conscious, mindful being? If so, give me some evidence that this is the case.

    Did you always exist then in this physical realm? You have said previously that you had a beginning. I would argue that you had a beginning, that you began to exist.

    Will you always exist in this physical realm? If so, give me evidence of this.

    If I did not exist, you would still be aware of the physical, so my mind is not necessary for its existence.
    Yes, because my mind in my own experience is operative and necessary, just as yours is.
    It is necessary for you alone, not the physical universe. 

    My mind is not the necessary mind for the existence of the universe, only for my perception of it. Your mind can also perceive it without me being alive or in existence. That is what I have been arguing all along. Your mind is not the necessary mind for the universe existing. But I argue a necessary Mind is and since the universe still exists without your mind then your mind is not that necessary mind for its existence.


    This does not inform and independent existence outside of our minds' rationalization. The minute you share your experiences with me, my mind automatically transmutes it and conforms it to my perceptions. Our perceptions have facilitated a standardization of communication which is--and this is important--common, not independent.
    Common, meaning specific meaning is necessary, and words in context convey specific meaning. There is a standard that you cross and confuse. Thus, a home is different from a factory although sometimes a home can house or include a factory and visa versa. 

    It was here before either of us existed, so our minds are not necessary for its existence.
    How have you confirmed this?
    Yes, confirmed through the coming into existence of others makes it logical to believe. It is most reasonable to believe. If you think not, are you being reasonable? Explain.

    I confirm it by conversing with you. You exist apart from me, or are you confirming and saying you are a figment of my imagination and that you do not exist as anything separate from my mind? If so, my mind is necessary and you are not. I think I will create a new imaginary character. I will also eliminate any physical record that my conversation with you existed since this conversation thread is just my imagination working overtime. Bye!

    The impossibility of the contrary or the unlikehood of the contrary is sufficient reason. 

    Yet without a necessary mind - the eternal God - would the physical universe exist?
    Physical is a manifestation of perception. The mind rationalizes and informs perception. Any scrutiny outside the bounds of the mind is epistemologically insignificant.
    Then try stepping in front of a speeding bus and not suffer any physical harm or hurt since it is all perception. I think you will find that the physical bus is more than just a perception but it actually exists. And not only you perceive it. 

    Yet, there was a time when you did not.
    Can you confirm this?
    Not in your universe. 

    Am I speaking to THE necessary being here? Are you it? I know I am not. My conscious experience began. I became aware of my being. 

    According to your profile, granting it is true, you were born 01 January 1930 (that makes you more of an antique than I am) so you had a beginning.
    My sentience had a beginning. (And my profile is an exaggeration save my native language and country of origin.)
    Can you confirm this?

    You have confirmed it, yourself, so your previous paragraph is answered by your present one. 

    I guessed as much about your profile since 1930 and your mental acumen at that age (90) was unreasonable. I surmise you are fairly young in relation to my age although I was not aware that you made up the whole thing. It seems to be a common thread in our conversation, your invention or creation. 

    Did the universe exist before that time (just not to you)? If you say no, are you (meaning me) the only person in the universe and are your (am I) playing games with yourself (myself) out of shear loneliness?

    Yes, it was just as much of an expression of the perceptions and mental faculties of those who preceded me. And my "loneliness" is none of your concern. We are discussing mind over matter, so to speak, not the emotions you allege I have.
    Then you are not necessary for its existence as has been my contention from the start. I was offering a scenario based on you as the creator of your own universe since you seemed to be suggesting you are necessary for the physical universe. It took a lot of effort to hear differently. 

    I was following through on your comments that seemed to imply you created the physical universe via your mind. 
    I'm not being mean. I am just investigating your thought process and trying to understand what you believe by candid questions and following through with the implications. I am not going to defend myself further. I initiated the conversation because I thought your position was inconsistent. If you do not believe I am here in good faith then it is your problem, not mine.  


    But the distinction is whether either of our minds are necessary to experience the physical and I know that I would still experience it without you existing.
    Non sequitur. No one has argued that I'm necessary for you to have an experience, albeit physical. It is being argued that the "mind" is necessary. And you have a mind.
    It is being argued that A mind is necessary but that mind is not your mind or mine. You turned it into your mind being that necessary mind for the existence of the physical universe. 

    I'm sure you believe the same about me.
    I cannot perceive you without the use of my mind. Your existence ndependent of my subjective experience is insignificant as it concerns me. That is not to say, that it bears to no significance to you.
    While this is true, it does not equate to there is no physical universe without your mind existing. 

    I'm not just asserting it. It is a logical impossibility. Some things are just illogical to think and thinking them makes no sense.

    I.e.,

    One apple plus one apply equals three apples.

    How is it a logical impossibility? One plus one equals two so long as the descriptions of each number are defined to make that statement true. Change the definitions and it's no longer an impossibility. And words, numbers,  and descriptions are, as you had put it earlier, "figments of the imagination." There are no material characteristics or chemical properties to numbers, so do they exist?
    Something would be logically impossible if it did not correspond to the laws of logic, which are mindful. That something, if illogical, would not be reasonable to believe but irrational.

    If I buy one dog, then buy another dog, that does not mean I bought three dogs. The concept of oneness exists without your mind thinking it. It are not physical or tangible but without it mathementics would be impossible. It is a concept that does not need your mind or my mind alone for it to be logical. It exists outside our minds thinking it. So it is separate from your mind or my mind yet it still requires mindfulness, suggesting a necessary mind gives it meaning, unless you can point to an individual human mind that gives it is meaningfulness and is necessary for its mental actuality. 

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Athias

    A "dog" is a word we use (it represents something) to describe a particular type of animal. When we speak of a dog we are not speaking at the same time of a cat. A=A. It has its own identity.  A dog is a dog. A dog is not a cat. 

    Something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in reference to the same thing. It is either true or it is false. It is either true that it is raining outside my house at this minute or it is not true. It cannot be both true and false at the same time. 

    Truth is not false.
    Non sequitur.
    I am showing what happens when you just invent meaning such as saying a house is a factory (house = factory) without qualification. 

    If you think such things that go against the laws of logic, yes. The laws of logic are necessary for meaningful conversation.
    It suffices to state that I'm intimately familiar with the rules of logic. Demonstrate which rules I'm breaking. And do so while not projecting your non sequiturs onto my arguments.
    All three laws, contradiction, identity, and middle inclusion. 

    House = factory stated without qualification and clarification is contravening these laws. 

    Oh yes, it is. I am not relying on my mind alone but on the mind of God, in as much as I understand His mind.
    Hence your understanding of God's mind is subjective since you decided to qualify your understanding by prefacing it with, "in as much as..."
    You confuse my subjective mind with objective knowledge. It is still possible for my subjective mind to understand objectively or else communication would be impossible. Now where origins come into discussion I believe it is not science but scientism. Thus, an objective being (one who created and understands such things) is necessary for our understanding. Thus, such a Being would have to revela to us the way things are. That is the biblical contention - God has revealed.

    When I correctly think and interpret His communications I think in an objective manner.
    No you are not. To your own admission, your understanding of his mind is limited by default.
    Are you saying that when someone communicates something it is not possible to be the authors meaning? If so, I might as well give up communicating with you since you believe my words have no objective meaning to them. You just make up whatever meaning you want to accept. You create the narrative not on what I intend it to mean but on what you intent it to mean. Again, such thinking is relativism. It does not work in the real world where words in context do have specific meaning and communication does take place where we understand each other. 

    I'm questioning whether you think you are all that exists?
    And this question is based on a non-sequitur. Hence, I haven't answered it because it would presume that I'm making the argument you allege I'm making.
    Again, you are playing games, IMO. It follows that if your mind is the necessary mind in the physical universe existing, then you are creating what is necessary from your mind. 

    I'm trying to find out what you think.
    No you're not. You're projecting what you think.
    I am following through on the consequences of your stated belief system as you have conveyed it, and trying to make sense of it. I question to find out more of what you believe. I am discovering contradictions and implausibility then highlighting them. I can go back to our OP and subsequent posts again to qualify my concerns, as you stated them, if you like.  


  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,384
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Athias @PGA2.0
    The debate has become the debate....And the subject has become irrelevant.
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 981
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    The Sun is a God.
    The Sun is real. 
    Thus.  

    Also jesus images on toast. 

     
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 737
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @OntologicalSpider
    It is a philosophical argument based upon the agnostic's basis of belief or non-belief. The agnostic affirms that he or she does not whether God exists or not - and that there is no rational or reasonable way of determining whether or not God exists. 

    I find this an amusing argument because it is a self contradictory statement which if true proves the opposite of what it alleges: namely that God does exist. 

    In other words, for the agnostic to rationally believe that there is nothing that can be known about God is true - he or she must start with a premise that they do know something about God, and that something is that nothing can be known.  And if they do know this - how do they know ?  And if they do know - then logically they have started with a premise that is actually a self contradictory premise within their argument.  

    I like this argument because it is a clear evidence for the existence of God based upon a philosophical position.  What are the flaws? Well - obviously, since it is a philosophical argument - and it is - it only is going to be worth something for those who are agnostics or theists. Secondly, it does not prove what or which god or gods - only that a god exists - which might well be a pimple on my backside for God or gods can be anything. 

    Interestingly, agnostic I have discussed this with - typically  become atheists once I have exposed their self contradictory reasoning. I think this is preferable to being an agnostic. You see agnostics - live inconsistently with their beliefs. After all if someone did not know whether God existed or not - it would impact upon their lives - but the fact is - most agnostics I have met - live like atheists. Hence - at least once their flaw is discovered they can live more consistent with their views. 

     
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret



    .
    Tradesecret,

    I for one, have truly missed your outright biblical ignorance as an assumed Christian in your time away from this forum.  As if your embarrassing, and where you were easily “schooled” Denominations Thread wasn’t enough biblical ignorance, you come forth once again to be made the biblical fool with your post #111. 

    YOUR COMICAL QUOTE AGAIN:It is a philosophical argument based upon the agnostic's basis of belief or non-belief. The agnostic affirms that he or she does not whether God exists or not - and that there is no rational or reasonable way of determining whether or not God exists.”

    As you have to be aware, the hell bound agnostic is nothing but a “fence sitter or coin flipper” in relation to ANY god concept. I am sure you’ve heard this one before, if your chosen God concept cannot be determined to exist or not under Agnostic pretensions, then in turn, at the Agnostics laughable expense, Tooth Fairies can possibly exist as well. Wait, it gets better, Leprechauns cannot be counted out of possibly existing under the comical Agnostic flag. Here lies the comical rub when one is a “fence sitter” Agnostic.  


    YOUR MISGUIDED NOTION OF THE GOD YOU WORSHIP: “In other words, for the agnostic to rationally believe that there is nothing that can be known about God is true”

    WRONG!  Let's use your serial killer God named Jesus, in that a lot can be known about Him as the Bible gives this pertinent information. We know that our Jesus, and that I have accepted, was Yahweh God incarnate, therefore, within the scriptures Jesus is greedy, jealous, selfish, self-centered, petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, and malevolent. Simple enough. Seriously, do you like being wrong for most of your time upon this forum? 


    YOUR REVEALING QUOTE: “I like this argument because it is a clear evidence for the existence of God based upon a philosophical position.”

    Correct! As shown above, our Jesus exists in the way explained, praise your newly founded enlightenment!


    YOU GOING AGAINST YOUR FAITH QUOTE: “You see agnostics - live inconsistently with their beliefs. After all if someone did not know whether God existed or not - it would impact upon their lives - but the fact is - most agnostics I have met - live like atheists.”

    NOT ONCE, I repeat, not once did you proffer that Jesus truly exists and that “coin flipping Agnostics” are definitely wrong!  You are too preclude that Agnostics are pissing up a rope and will be Hell bound upon their earthly demise, therefore defending the faith, understood? 

    "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)

    Once again you slap Jesus in the face with your disrespectful treatise relative to Agnosticism and not promoting Jesus against this Satanic faith.  Thank Jesus’ revenge upon you regarding Judgment Day, praise Jesus!


    .
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @PGA2.0
    You miss the point and are overthinking. I can demonstrate physicality without using YOUR mind, so your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical. And you can explain and show physicality without the existence of my mind, so physicality is not dependent on my mind thinking it.
    Where did I mention that your demonstration necessitated the use of "my" mind. I challenged you to demonstrate and confirm physicality without the use of "your" mind. And while I can conceptualize notions of physicality independent of your mind, I cannot demonstrate physicality independent of my mind. Being able to communicate and rationalize a standard which, for lack of a better term, "unites" our subjective experiences doesn't inform an experience independent of our subjectivity--far from it. In other words, amassing subjective experiences and rationalizing a logical consistency doesn't create objectivity. [Consensus neither informs nor creates objectivity.] Because we are fundamentally subjects. One can never not be the subject of his or her experience.

    I'm not "overthinking" it. I'm demonstrating an understanding of concepts like physicality, the values we ascribe them, and the role the mind plays in all of it.

    If you did not exist, I could still show other mindful beings that it still hurts to get run over by a speeding bus or for me to hit another mindful being with a hammer, causing a contusion as a minimal consequence.
    Once again, my nonexistence is irrational, just like that of any other. You're confusing death with nonexistence. And what is pain? What is a contusion or laceration even without your mind? What value do you ascribe the image of either? And how do you differentiate without the concept of differentiation, which is informed by your mind? How does one control for the difference between observation and conception?

    You seem to be suggesting that nothing exists if your mind does not exist since your mind is the necessary mind for it to exist.
    Seem is not an argument; I'm suggesting that any ontological analysis outside of the mind's information is epistemolgically insignificant.

    Now, if no mind existed, there would be no one to know it existed, thus would it exist? If so, how did the physical make it possible for us thinking, conscious beings who are aware of its existence unless the physical universe is created in itself by a necessary mind who in turn creates other limited mindful beings?
    The answer to this question is one which you must substantiate without appealing to your own incredulity and ignorance. You're creating a false dichotomy while skipping the steps on how it's necessary--as you allege--that a necessary mind creates other limited mindful beings. The floor is yours: substantiate.

    That is what we continually find when we examine the universe. Mindful processes are found to be in operation that we discover, not invent. They existed before we discovered them.
    What are these findings? And where can they be found?

    Then why is your mind the necessary mind for the existence of the physical since you believe your mind is needed for there to be a physical reality?
    Non sequitur. You are projecting and misusing a context of "objectivity" while I'm not. My mind is necessary, once again, for my own subjective experience--including any conceptualization of physicality, just as your mind is necessary for your subjective experience. Communicating a standard "between minds"--as far as one can tell--does not necessarily constitute an "objective" physical reality. Even if I were dead, it would not make your experience, or that of any other less subjective.

    No, that is not true. Some mindful beings no longer exist or are non-functioning in this physical realm.
    The error in your reasoning here is that even we were to entertain "the veracity of your second statement, my argument would still hold. Because if the mindful being "no longer existed," his or her mind would no longer exist. Thus, it would not "count" as part of "all minds." But this indulgence is irrational because neither you nor I can perceive or appreciate nonexistence.

    Thus, not all minds are necessary for its physiology.
    Whose "physiology"?

    Yes, your ignorance of Him distorts who He is.
    How?

    Instead of worshiping the Creator, you worship a graven image, what you suppose God to be, not what He is.
    I worship no one. I acknowledge and accept God's being; I do not worship it.

    You manufacture God based on another subjective beings (Confucius) feelings of God.
    I have not.

    Three reasons: The law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middles.
    Demonstrate how all three are applicable to the argument for God's existence at the exclusion of all other gods.

    He has what is necessary, a personal God, an omniscient God, an unchanging God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God, a benevolent God, a revealed God. He gives us verification.
    Once again: what does that have to do with logical necessity?

    How does Confucius, other than his subjective writings and musings about God reveal God?
    Non sequitur. I never claimed Confucius wasn't subjective.

    Yes, I argue against yours as found in Confucius, based on the biblical God's revelation. The biblical God who is knowable and has made Himself known is my reason.
    Still doesn't register. I have not once excluded God. I haven't disputed God's existence. Are you arguing against the belief that God is not the only "god"? That's your prerogative, I suppose.

    As I said before, each perception is different.
    Redundant.

    My understanding of God is different than yours.
    Redundant.
    One of us is most definitely wrong since we understand God differently.
    It is of no consequence how one's sees God. I've argued that God exists. This has little to do with how you or I "understand" God's description. Either way, it wouldn't change that God exists.

    Confucius was a man. What makes him infallible or even correct about God?
    Non sequitur. Never stated that he was "infallible."

    Again, written by ONE man. Why should he be believed?
    The number of men is not significant. And I don't argue that Confucius should be believed.

    People believe all kinds of things that are not true. What are the internal pieces of evidence that what is said is true?
    Such as? As for "internal" pieces of evidence, Confucius' relays are sufficient.

    There you have it. I can't ask Confucius.
    Obviously.

    You presume. I'm asking for your evidence that your particular belief is a reasonable belief.
    And I've given it to you. You reject it.

    The Bible has many verifiable proofs; one of the most reasonable is prophecy. Another is the unity of the Bible. Each of the 66 writings written by around forty different authors, presents a typology of the Lord Jesus Christ. What is spoken of God in the OT is spoken of Jesus in the NT! There are at least eight NT writers that claim 1st-hand knowledge of witnessing Jesus and His resurrection.
    And how does the number of authors or the number of "1st-hand witnesses" qualify or quantify its truth? You're imputing an ad numerum fallacy.

    How many 1st-hand witnesses were there that Confucius could cite regarding Tien?
    Doesn't matter. The number of  1st hand witnesses contrary to the popular belief cultivated by commonwealth legal systems doesn't necessarily inform truth.

    The 66 writings I spoke of a few paragraphs ago.
    66 writings is evidence of 66 writings. The number, once again, is insignificant.

    What does that mean? Is Tien a person? If so, describe Tien's personality.
    We were contrasting and comparing Tien and God, and you're asking "Is Tien a person"? I would presume you know that which I mean when I state that Tien is deity especially since in another response, you demonstrated an understanding.

    Why? Because we are personal beings. How does personhood come from the impersonal? How does consciousness come from that which is devoid of it? How does agency come from something devoid of intent. You have to be mindful to have intent. If Tien is not personal, I want to know how personhood originates.
    That is for you to answer rather than shift the burden to satisfy your appeals to ignorance and incredulity. That is, you must substantiate how personhood does not come from the impersonal; that consciousness does not come from that which is devoid of it; that agency does not come from that which is devoid of intent. The floor is yours, again.

    Are you saying Tien is not a personal being? If so, your god difference from the biblical God. Thus, logically one of us is wrong in our perception of God and I say that it is you. 
    Once again, "my" doesn't register. I do not possess Tien. And I already know that you're arguing that "I'm wrong." This is based on an irrational presumption of objectivity which would necessitate the acquisition and processing of information independent of your subjective proclivities. And you've insinuated that consensus somehow remedies this. Subjective + Subjective = Subjective.

    That means nothing. It is a tautology.
    If you know it's tautological, then why are you still asking questions about it?


  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Athias

    You are playing games
    I do not play games in serious discussions.
    That is good to hear, but I disagree. You are using semantics on two fronts. You redefine factory and home and you suggest all minds are necessary minds for the existence of the physical universe. 

    You state things that seem illogical or at least inconsistent. You seem to think that your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe yet if you did not exist I would still perceive it. 
    Seem is not an argument; Yes my mind is necessary for and informs my subjective perception of the physical, just as your mind is necessary for and informs your subjective perception of the physical.
    I say that (seem) because I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in that I may be misinterpreting what you are saying or there might be a misunderstanding in what was originally penned and what we now have uncovered in your thinking.

    Without your mind, the physical universe would still exist, just not for you, because it exists for me. So either I am having a conversation with myself (my ultra-ego) and you don't exist, you are having a conversation with yourself and are making up the opposition to stimulate your mind and I don't exist, or you do exist and so do I. Thus, if you exist, my mind is not necessary for the physical universe to exist since you still perceive it and experience its hard knocks physically.  

    So, which way should I direct this conversation?

    Again, it boils down to the question of if you did not exist would the universe still exist? I say that based on my experience it would. My parents are both dead, but the universe is still here. It did not depend on their existence for it to have being.
    No, this is a question that you are projecting. Once again, you are making references to survival, not existence (i.e. your parents' death state.)
    Prove it. I did not even consider "survival" until you mentioned it. If you survive then you exist, do you not?

    Projecting? You are making a lot of assertions on what is and what is not the case that are not logically conclusive, even contrary to logical laws that are dependent in making sense of things. 

    I can't without using my mind, but my mind is not necessary for its existence because whether I exist or not it would still be here. Whether I existed or not, words, language, maths would still be evident to those who still exist unless you think that you are the only one in existence, then I leave you to argue further with yourself.
    You cannot perceive your own nonexistence. Nonexistence is imperceptible. You would know "nothing" because you'd be "nothing." You're only making assumptions about that which lies outside of your mind; you have not confirmed this; you have not controlled for it. You merely reference a commonality in communication (i.e. logic, math, science, etc.) as independent without demonstration. You're speaking to the "intersubjective," not the "objective."
    So, do you believe I am conversing with you or not? 

    2+2=4 is an objective fact. Counting is dependent on the laws of mathematics. The laws of logic are objective facts. Without using them nothing can be made sense of. 

    I confirm it by experience. I see that it did not depend on the various people I know who have died. They were not necessary for the physical to exist. It exists apart from them. They were only necessary to experience it. 
    What experience? And how did you control for that experience independent of your own mind? Once again, death is not the same as non-existence.
    My own and that of others confirmed by hearing their accounts of their experience. I have yet to hear from the experience or account of those who have died physically, other than the biblical account of Jesus' death and resurrection and a biblical resurrection in AD 70, as well as those who believe being raised from death to life in God. I do believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus.

    So, once dead, my parents minds have confirmed nothing to me. Neither have the minds of those whom I have known, like my sister, or my dead friends.

    I agree, death is not the same as non-existence, but many would disagree with you on that contention. But death is where you are separated from the physical universe or realm. You can't SHOW me that someone who has died is still physically and mentally present with us, other than as a rotten body of ashes. You can't show conclusively that they are communicating with us. 

    Thus I have no experience of these things. What I experience is someone dying and they are no longer with us physically in any sense that my mind can detect. Neither do the continue to converse with me. 

    Once you say you are necessary for the physical existence of the universe I take unbridge with that.
    This is projection. Quote me verbatim.
    Yes, you are projecting, trying to create the narrative. 

    If your mind did not exist would the universe still physically exist to other minds, or is your mind the only mind?
    My mind is not the only mind; but this has no significance independent of my mind, because its mere notion is produced and informed by mind.
    Good, you admit your mind is not the only mind!

    But the physical universe would still have significance for my mind. You keep denying that in that you keep saying your mind is necessary for the existence of the physical universe. It is not because it would still exist without your mind. You just would not know it since there would be no you. 

    No, that is not the question. It is not about your subjective experience but about whether you believe the universe would exist for others if you did not.
    Your questions have been based on projections and non sequiturs. I cannot perceive my own nonexistence, and thus I do not offer rationalizations premised on the aforestated because nonexistence is irrational.
    No, you are projecting your narrative on the discussion. I have explained how your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical universe. I would still experience it if you did not exist. Now, if you think your mind is the only mind, then it would be the necessary mind for the physical existence of the universe. Are you the only mind? You sought of affirm in your next statement of double-talk that your mind is not the only mind and that it is. If your mind is not the only mind then your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical universe. It is not even the only mind you know of, is it?

    You say to my next question, are there other minds - yes.
    You say to my followup question that it (meaning you, thus about your mind) is all about YOU (yes) so is your mind the only mind that matters or are other minds involved also? 

    You miss the qualifier - OR. 

    So what you are saying is that there are other minds and it is all about your mind (everything centers on your mind - egotistical, don't you think?). Thus, if you think it is, it is so - creating your own reality, or explained in another way, relativism. Everything revolves around subjective you and things are not what they are until you make them so. 

    Do you believe there are any others? Or is this all about you?
    Yes, and yes.
    See my last statement.

    And because you don't know Him you are wrong about Him. 
    How have I been wrong about him. Quote me verbatim.
    First, you say God is not a personal being. So, for you, the personal comes from the nonpersonal. Thus, one of us is wrong in our thinking about God. I say it is reasonable to believe it is you. 

    Because every other god contradicts. To establish this all I would have to do is get you to describe your god and what you think that god is like.
    So God's existence--or that of any god--is necessarily informed by his description?
    Any knowable God is informed by description. What are you aware of God as? Do you know anything about your god or are you making your god up on your likes and dislikes?


    If God is not omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, immutable, eternal, and personal, that is not the God of Christianity. Can you say your god fits that description?

    "The scholar Ronnie Littlejohn warns that Tian was not to be interpreted as personal God comparable to that of the Abrahamic faiths, in the sense of an otherworldly or transcendent creator.[36] Rather it is similar to what Taoists meant by Dao: "the way things are" or "the regularities of the world",[33] which Stephan Feuchtwang equates with the ancient Greek concept of physis, "nature" as the generation and regenerations of things and of the moral order.[37] Tian may also be compared to the Brahman of Hindu and Vedic traditions.[9] The scholar Promise Hsu, in the wake of Robert B. Louden, explained 17:19 ("What does Tian ever say? Yet there are four seasons going round and there are the hundred things coming into being. What does Tian say?") as implying that even though Tian is not a "speaking person", it constantly "does" through the rhythms of nature, and communicates "how human beings ought to live and act", at least to those who have learnt to carefully listen to it.[35]

    How do you listen to "it" if it does not speak audibly or in written words? It seems from the description above that this god is panentheistic, expressed in nature or what is made.

    I have already seen that the god you talk about is not the same God I believe in.
    I've been talking about two gods, so to which one are you referring? Tien? Or God?
    Precisely. I contend your god is not the true, living, and personal God (i.e., biblical), the ONE who is, but a mental construct from the minds of humans, thus an idol and human construct/creation.

    Thus, logically, one of us is wrong in our belief. That is a law of logic.
    Making reference to the qualifier, "logically" does not mean you're employing logic.
    Are you saying that two contrary/opposite positions can both be right at the same time regarding the same thing (in this case God)?

    It states that two contrary things cannot both be true at the same time concerning the same thing. 
    So I must ask again: why is it logically necessary that God exists to the exclusion of all others? How is the existence of God contrary to that of Tien's?
    Because each religion has a different image/ideas of who/what God is. Thus, no two religions (in which I include atheism) are alike in their idea of God. Thus, only one can be true, if any. I claim the Judeo-Christian God is the true God. I believe there is reasonable evidence for this belief; more so than any other "god" belief. 

    Thus, I ask you for the evidence you have that your god exists. I am willing to provide some on mine, and I have already laid out some basic evidence previously. 

    He meets the requirements of what is necessary to know about origins.
    What are those requirements?
    A written self-revelation (contained in a historical record - 66 writings) verified in many different ways.
  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @PGA2.0
    Then God is a personal being and separate from creation. Is God then monotheistic or pluralistic?
    Explain your conclusion. And monotheism and pluralism are not attributes of God; they're descriptions of religion and philosophy. 

    I mean God is something outside of yourself who exists without you inventing Him/God, or existing just because you accept another subjective person's invention. He is real, not invented but actual, not a figment of your mind or a projection from another person's mind but actual regardless of your mind.
    How do you know what exists outside of yourself if it is in fact outside of yourself? What is the difference between "actual" and "invented"?

    So "dog" is the definition of a horse!!!
    It can be should the description change. Descriptions aren't immutable.

    Vocabulary gives the word meaning in a context, a combination of alphabetic symbols to describe something specific. Depending on how you use that word in context gives it specific meaning.
    Then words don't have specific meanings. Only context does. And that was not your argument. Don't backpedal.

    In context words convey specific mean or else you would not be able to understand me. You know when I say I'm green with envy I am usually speaking figuratively, not speaking of my physical being as being green. You know when I say the grass at my house is green I am usually speaking of the physical lawn at my house.
    Don't backpedal. I presented you with a homonym, and you're now trying to revise your original argument to include for context. Context speaks more to my argument than it does to yours. You are arguing the sustenance of general descriptions based on a common understanding. And in doing so, you asserted that words have specific meanings. Now, you're stating that words have meanings specific to context? If that's the case, then this contradicts your previous citation of "Law of Identity," albeit fumbled, because words don't have specific meanings (i.e. "mine" being informed by a possessive, an explosive, or an excavation site for minerals.)

    You are the one blurring the difference. You think that just because you can think it, then it makes it true. That is the message you convey throughout this dialogue. That, my friend, is the definition of a relativist. Relativism doesn't work successfully in the real world.
    No. That is the definition of idealism.

    You are blurring the difference between a house and a factory without first qualifying it by context.
    You're projecting again. Your original argument renders context contradictory since words, as you put it, are subject to the law of identity. I don't have to qualify using a context because I'm not the one arguing any specific description. You are. The only necessary description to both a factory and a house is that they're buildings.

    Sure. It is ONE of the distinctions that usually separate houses and factories. Some houses may qualify as a factory, and some factories qualify as a home (such as a factory ship in a whaling fleet), but it is not usual. People do not usually live or sleep at a factory with their families. Homes usually house families.
    Once again, this is not about what people usually do. This is about description. You concurred with Stronn that my argument imputed a logical contradiction, the likes of which neither of you have substantiated. Are you willing to withdraw this allegation?

    Can you find one that includes both? Take a standard dictionary, whichever you like, and prove your case. Prove that the definition of a house is the same as that of a factory. 
    A futile attempt at shifting the burden. Furthermore, my argument was never that the descriptions of a house and factory were the same.

    I have qualified my meaning.
    Irrelevant. It is still logically fallacious reasoning.

    No, you have blurred the standard definitions found in dictionaries without qualification.
    What is it that you're arguing? That words have meaning specific to context? Or that words should be restricted to their standard definitions? You can't have it both ways.

    Your relativism say, "I call something what it is and that makes it what it is."
    That's not relativism; that's idealism (perhaps a bit of solipsism as well.)

    You just invent a god and say that god is the real God when that god does not comply to the real God if you do not believe it to be so.
    You're projecting... again. I do not presume objectivity, and thus qualify God with descriptions which fallaciously ascribe objectivity--i.e. your gratuitous use of the term "real." I merely argue that God exists.

    That is why I ask you for evidence that God is who you say God is.  
    What or who have I argued or said that God is?



  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 737
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Honestly, 

    the fact that you continue to run this parody is sad and pathetic. 

    The OP asked a question - I answered it. 

    Your commentary was unhelpful and as always "your own opinion piece". 

    One of the reasons I  don't come back here often and respond is because of people such as yourself. 

    I don't take kindly to the continual abuse and insults and don't have to put up with it. So I don't. Unlike you, I don't have to win every argument. Although to be transparent I don't think you have actually won an argument. I certainly never feel the need to respond to most of your diatribe because (honestly) you don't actually put up an argument - and even on the odd occasion you might make a point, it usually lacks any meat.  I notice the way you make most of your points is by way of your interpretation of other's positions and commenting on it. If they point out you misunderstood - rather than trying to understand you simply berate them for flipping.  It really makes it pointless having a discussion with you - since you are never interested in discussing - just telling. I found Harikrish pointless to discuss things with - he is your soul mate. 

    So since things don't really look like they have picked up around here - I guess I might have to be a little more patient. 
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Athias
    Then God is a personal being and separate from creation. Is God then monotheistic or pluralistic?
    Explain your conclusion. And monotheism and pluralism are not attributes of God; they're descriptions of religion and philosophy. 
    The biblical God has revealed He is the one true and living God. There are no gods besides Him, only those who are "called" god/s. Therefore, since He is the one God we speak of God in monotheistic terms. Not only this, but the biblical God speaks of Himself with the pronoun "He." He thinks, acts, loves, judges, has compassion, gets angry, is merciful, requires obedience and soforth, which are all ways of describing a personal being. 


    I mean God is something outside of yourself who exists without you inventing Him/God, or existing just because you accept another subjective person's invention. He is real, not invented but actual, not a figment of your mind or a projection from another person's mind but actual regardless of your mind.
    How do you know what exists outside of yourself if it is in fact outside of yourself? What is the difference between "actual" and "invented"?
    One way is that I bump into things that are not me. (^8 I can deny them but at the risk of bodily harm. I interact with others that speak of themselves as "I" or "me."

    The actual is what is. When I speak of the invented in this instance I speak of something that is a mindful fancy. That mental projection does not really exist as anything but an idea, like a pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster. 

    So "dog" is the definition of a horse!!!
    It can be should the description change. Descriptions aren't immutable.
    They are symbols we associate with things. They have a definite identity. If you associate the animal we call a horse with the animal we associate with a dog you have a misconception of what is being spoken of. When enough people use a term or symbol of representation in a way in which it becomes acceptable to think of that way, then yes, it gives the term an additional meaning. But that term is still understood in its context. Context gives it the meaning.

    Vocabulary gives the word meaning in a context, a combination of alphabetic symbols to describe something specific. Depending on how you use that word in context gives it specific meaning.
    Then words don't have specific meanings. Only context does. And that was not your argument. Don't backpedal.
    No, they do have specific meaning. The same word can have a number of meanings and we understand which use or specific meaning by the context.

    Dog
    • a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, non-retractable claws, and a barking, howling, or whining voice.
    • 2.an unpleasant, contemptible, or wicked man
    The term dog has a specific meaning. It is usually the identity we give to a particular kind of animal. Now, in context we can use that term in a number of different ways such as a figure of speech to perhaps personify or satire someone or something.

    In context words convey specific mean or else you would not be able to understand me. You know when I say I'm green with envy I am usually speaking figuratively, not speaking of my physical being as being green. You know when I say the grass at my house is green I am usually speaking of the physical lawn at my house.
    Don't backpedal. I presented you with a homonym, and you're now trying to revise your original argument to include for context. Context speaks more to my argument than it does to yours. You are arguing the sustenance of general descriptions based on a common understanding. And in doing so, you asserted that words have specific meanings. Now, you're stating that words have meanings specific to context? If that's the case, then this contradicts your previous citation of "Law of Identity," albeit fumbled, because words don't have specific meanings (i.e. "mine" being informed by a possessive, an explosive, or an excavation site for minerals.)
    I'm not backpeddling. I'm explaining. You equated factory = house. 

    When I say green a particular colour comes to mind that is not blue or yellow but a shade in between the two.
    One is a single unit of quantity. An individual is one person. 

    Now, how I use the word in a context distinguishes the use, if the word has more than one meaning.

    Dog = dog. Dog =/= cat. The law of identity states that a dog is a dog, that it has a specific identity. 

    You are a relativist. You make up the meaning. You say, factory = house because I say it does. The problem with relativism is that sooner or later you can't live by the belief. 

    You are the one blurring the difference. You think that just because you can think it, then it makes it true. That is the message you convey throughout this dialogue. That, my friend, is the definition of a relativist. Relativism doesn't work successfully in the real world.
    No. That is the definition of idealism.
    Factory = house is relativistic unless you qualify what you mean by that statement. 

    You are blurring the difference between a house and a factory without first qualifying it by context.
    You're projecting again. Your original argument renders context contradictory since words, as you put it, are subject to the law of identity. I don't have to qualify using a context because I'm not the one arguing any specific description. You are. The only necessary description to both a factory and a house is that they're buildings.
    I'm just stating what you have said - factory = house. For you the terms are interchangeable. I'm going to the factory to sleep, take a shower, and relax, then I will go home and work. I go home to earn a living and I go to the factory to spend recreation time. 

    Sure. It is ONE of the distinctions that usually separate houses and factories. Some houses may qualify as a factory, and some factories qualify as a home (such as a factory ship in a whaling fleet), but it is not usual. People do not usually live or sleep at a factory with their families. Homes usually house families.
    Once again, this is not about what people usually do. This is about description. You concurred with Stronn that my argument imputed a logical contradiction, the likes of which neither of you have substantiated. Are you willing to withdraw this allegation?
    No, unless you are willing to accept that the biblical definition of God is the same as your definition and that the two are the same, which I refute. If that is the case (the same), why do you identify with Confucist and not Christianity and making a distinction? Jesus never claimed to be just a mere man. He gave Himself the same attributes and qualities reserved only for the Hebrew God, and the Jews understood His meaning and took up stones to stone Him because they thought the comparison was blasphemy. Did Confucius claim to be God in the flesh and attribute to himself the same qualities as that of God? Does your religion belief that Confucius rose from the dead? Is his tomb empty? 

    Can you find one that includes both? Take a standard dictionary, whichever you like, and prove your case. Prove that the definition of a house is the same as that of a factory. 
    A futile attempt at shifting the burden. Furthermore, my argument was never that the descriptions of a house and factory were the same.
    I'm asking you to be accountable for your statement. 

    I have qualified my meaning.
    Irrelevant. It is still logically fallacious reasoning.
    When you make a charge please give examples and explain why. 

    No, you have blurred the standard definitions found in dictionaries without qualification.
    What is it that you're arguing? That words have meaning specific to context? Or that words should be restricted to their standard definitions? You can't have it both ways.
    I can compare a house to a factory in some ways. I can also include a factory in my house. The two are still separate. I don't sleep on the production line. 

    Your relativism say, "I call something what it is and that makes it what it is."
    That's not relativism; that's idealism (perhaps a bit of solipsism as well.)
    It is when you deconstruct the narrative to suit your definition. 

    You just invent a god and say that god is the real God when that god does not comply to the real God if you do not believe it to be so.
    You're projecting... again. I do not presume objectivity, and thus qualify God with descriptions which fallaciously ascribe objectivity--i.e. your gratuitous use of the term "real." I merely argue that God exists.
    Show me that your god is not just a projection of your mind but actual is. I'm asking for evidence. You claim you have given evidence. Did I miss that? Where is it? 

    That is why I ask you for evidence that God is who you say God is.  
    What or who have I argued or said that God is?
    YOU: "Why would one attribute consciousness and personhood to Tien or any other deity?"

    You suggest consciousness and personality are not something you attribute to your god. That is in stark contrast to the biblical God. 

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,384
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Athias @PGA2.0
    And no one as yet has ever proven that an actual god, actually exists.

    Therefore the debate is for the debates sake and the subject has become irrelevant.

    But maybe that's what makes it a favourite.......Who can best elucidate the unexplainable.....Because there's no chance of resolving the unresolveable.

    As I was always told.........It's not the god that matters, it's the taking part.......Or something along those lines.

    Stay with it boys. (Gender assumed).
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @zedvictor4
    And no one as yet has ever proven that an actual god, actually exists.
    That is not true. Proof is evidence. What would it take for you to believe the evidence. That is the real question. People make up all kinds of excuses to dismiss the evidence. And the evidence is reasonable. In fact, I would say that it is your worldview in denial that is unreasonable. Try examining it some time. 

    Therefore the debate is for the debates sake and the subject has become irrelevant.
    I have learned a long time ago that you can't convince someone against their will. All I can do is show a person how unreasonable their own worldview is. What they do with that is their business. 

    But maybe that's what makes it a favourite.......Who can best elucidate the unexplainable.....Because there's no chance of resolving the unresolveable.
    What make you think it is the Christian worldview that is unreasonable and unexplainable? It is yours. You probably just don't realize it or do not want to accept it.

    As I was always told.........It's not the god that matters, it's the taking part.......Or something along those lines.
    No idea what that means. 

    Stay with it boys. (Gender assumed).
    Yes, I'm male and married. I'm not ashamed of Christianity or being a man either, or love between a man and woman. Nor am I ashamed of being caucasian.

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,384
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @PGA2.0
    That is not true.
    It is true and there is no real proof.....And you also, shouldn't be ashamed to admit it.

    I would not wish to deny you or any other denomination of theist the right to believe in fantastical hypotheses....I'm simply not prepared to run with them myself.

    Though, based upon your level of evidence requirements, I would expect you to accept that every other religious concept is also absolutely correct.....Is this not a reasonable expectation?
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @zedvictor4
    That is not true.
    It is true and there is no real proof.....And you also, shouldn't be ashamed to admit it.
    Sure, there is. History verifies the biblical writings through prophecy as one example. Prophecy is a reasonable proof. The internal consistency of these 66 writings is another. Names, places, events is another when compared to external writings of the time. 

    I would not wish to deny you or any other denomination of theist the right to believe in fantastical hypotheses....I'm simply not prepared to run with them myself.
    Suggsting the hypothetical or fanciful is just a ploy/game played by atheists and non-believers to control the narrative. I can do the same by assertion also --> It is the non-believers worldview that is fanciful. Back up your claims (not with copy and paste).

    Though, based upon your level of evidence requirements, I would expect you to accept that every other religious concept is also absolutely correct.....Is this not a reasonable expectation?
    No, you don't find the same level of evidence with other ancient manuscripts. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,384
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @PGA2.0
    So wherein lies my fantasy?


  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @zedvictor4
    So wherein lies my fantasy?
    Your denial of the biblical God and what you replace Him with.

  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Athias
    You miss the point and are overthinking. I can demonstrate physicality without using YOUR mind, so your mind is not necessary for the existence of the physical. And you can explain and show physicality without the existence of my mind, so physicality is not dependent on my mind thinking it.
    Where did I mention that your demonstration necessitated the use of "my" mind. I challenged you to demonstrate and confirm physicality without the use of "your" mind. And while I can conceptualize notions of physicality independent of your mind, I cannot demonstrate physicality independent of my mind. Being able to communicate and rationalize a standard which, for lack of a better term, "unites" our subjective experiences doesn't inform an experience independent of our subjectivity--far from it. In other words, amassing subjective experiences and rationalizing a logical consistency doesn't create objectivity. [Consensus neither informs nor creates objectivity.] Because we are fundamentally subjects. One can never not be the subject of his or her experience.

    I'm not "overthinking" it. I'm demonstrating an understanding of concepts like physicality, the values we ascribe them, and the role the mind plays in all of it.
    Missed this post. Sorry. 

    I never said that my demonstration necessitated the use of your mind. You are twisting my meaning, the intent of what I wrote and meant. Let me reword to clear up your misunderstanding. I said that for ME to demonstrate physicality to MYSELF your mind is not necessary. Thus, it is not the necessary mind for there to be physicality. It exists regardless of whether you do. I realize you cannot demonstrate it without the use of your mind but what I'm saying is that it would exist without your mind because it would exist for me, thus, your mind is not the necessary mind for its existence. And from your perspective, my mind is not the necessary mind for its existence. So, since neither your mind, nor my mind, are necessary for its existence, we are not the necessary mind as to why it exists.

    Although our experience is from a subjective viewpoint, that does not necessarily equate to there being no objectivity available to us. God is the necessary mind for us to rightly think about origins from an objective standpoint. Without Him, I would agree with your thinking. Thus, if a personal, revealing God did not exist I would be in the same boat without a paddle that you find yourself in. 

    When you say,
    "Because we are fundamentally subjects. One can never not be the subject of his or her experience."

    To an extent we can, granting the existence of the biblical God. In Him we get an objective perspective. We have to correctly think His thoughts after Him, or rightly interpret His written revelation to us. Just as I can understand you and get your intended meaning so can I His.  Thus your words, when well written and correctly interpreted, do convey objective meaning, an intended meaning so that I can understand you. If everything was subjective I would just take your word conveyance and make it mean whatever I wanted it to mean. Thus, the chance of understanding what you said would be virtually nil. If every exchange of ideas was then a subjective communication between two people it would be very challenging, if not impossible. I could just construct my meaning out of everything you said as a relativist does with the Bible way too often. Instead of looking for the authors meaning I could say that "this is what the author meant" when in fact it was nothing like what He meant.

    If you did not exist, I could still show other mindful beings that it still hurts to get run over by a speeding bus or for me to hit another mindful being with a hammer, causing a contusion as a minimal consequence.
    Once again, my nonexistence is irrational, just like that of any other. You're confusing death with nonexistence. And what is pain? What is a contusion or laceration even without your mind? What value do you ascribe the image of either? And how do you differentiate without the concept of differentiation, which is informed by your mind? How does one control for the difference between observation and conception?
    Your non-existence is irrational to you, but if you were never conceived you could not proceed to death and the afterlife. If you were never conceived and I was I would still perceive the physical world from my mind and I would still feel my body (which is physical) bumping into it. 

    Are you separating the mind from the body in the sense that you deny physicality? Do you recognize there is a difference between your mind and your body or other physical items/things? I know my mind is necessary in perceiving them but I also know that they exist apart from me, just like you exist apart from me, or are we back to either you or I do not exist, one of us is nothing more that a projection that the real one is creating. Is that what you believe, or will you give the other (me) acknowledgement as also existing. Actually, you did in a previous post. Thus, it boils down to more than just your own mind in being the necessary mind for the physical and other minds existing. They exist apart from yours and they too are not the necessary mind for the physical reality. 

    You seem to be suggesting that nothing exists if your mind does not exist since your mind is the necessary mind for it to exist.
    Seem is not an argument; I'm suggesting that any ontological analysis outside of the mind's information is epistemolgically insignificant.
    While this is true, your mind it not necessary for others to have this analysis. Thus, your mind is not the necessary mind for such an analysis to take place. I would still be analyzing without you, and you without me, and others without us. So, neither of us are that necessary mind. 

    Now, if no mind existed, there would be no one to know it existed, thus would it exist? If so, how did the physical make it possible for us thinking, conscious beings who are aware of its existence unless the physical universe is created in itself by a necessary mind who in turn creates other limited mindful beings?
    The answer to this question is one which you must substantiate without appealing to your own incredulity and ignorance. You're creating a false dichotomy while skipping the steps on how it's necessary--as you allege--that a necessary mind creates other limited mindful beings. The floor is yours: substantiate.
    I have already explained how. Others before me, before my conception and beginning, have contemplated their own existence and have acknowledged others existed before them. My parents have told me of their life before I was born. I have seen others before they had a child. Not only this, but I have witnessed others dying. They are no longer here, in the physical.

    Sometimes when I sleep I am aware of nothing. It is like I did not exist, yet I awaken and am again aware. Once I lost consciousness in a car accident. It was like I never existed during that time. Somehow I got from the African bush to an African hospital where I was revived. It seemed to me that others still existed and cared for me while I was out cold. My life was not in my hands during that time to my knowledge. It was as if I had never existed in between the bush accident and the hospital (except for a brief period of time in which I was revived and felt the pain during the drive then went unconscious again). 

    I also see beings that have had a beginning create other beings that have had a beginning. Personal beings derive their existence from other personal beings. But how did the first personal being come to be? It was either from a necessary Being (eternal and unchanging) or blind chance happenstance; from a logical, intelligent, reasoning Mind, or blind indifferent chance; from an intentional, purposeful, mindful Being or by pure chance. So, what is the more likely scenario? What is the more logical and rational explanation? There is no reason, no rational explanation from pure chance happenstance. There is no purpose, no meaning, no value from blind indifferent chance. Thus, God is the reasonable and logical explanation. Then, on top of that I have the biblical revelation that makes sense. I have what is necessary for my existence and for the existence of the physical universe, a Creator who stands apart from His creation, a personal Being just like I am, a thinking and intelligent Being, just like I am, a Being with purpose, meaning and love just like I have who has revealed so I can know!

    Now, even though I use my mind to fathom this complexity of "being" I know the most reasonable and logical explanation lies outside myself for I do not understand all the complexities of the universe and don't know how I would be able to create it all by my self. If I created everything I would expect to know how everything works and how I put it together, but I don't. I'm ignorant of so, so much. Thus, I look to a necessary Mind, a mind that is greater than mine for the explanation. That mind is another personal Being, just like I am personal, but to an infinitely greater extent than me and my limited awareness. 


  • Athias
    Athias avatar
    Debates: 11
    Forum posts: 902
    3
    3
    8
    Athias avatar
    Athias
    --> @zedvictor4
    And no one as yet has ever proven that an actual god, actually exists.
    I have twice. Your rejection is irrelevant.

    Therefore the debate is for the debates sake and the subject has become irrelevant.
    The sake of this debate and its relevance is determined by both me and PGA2.0 since we're the ones having it.

    Who can best elucidate the unexplainable.....Because there's no chance of resolving the unresolveable.
    Who determined that there was no resolution? I argue the resolution is the acknowledgment that the mind is chief in determining "reality." You seek metaphysical objectivity; I don't because it's epsitemologically insignificant and irrational. 

    Stay with it boys. (Gender assumed).
    Always do.