-->
@Mopac
English language conventions are also created by humans, so Gods are no different to gods.
The Problem with Atheists
Posts
Total:
372
-->
@disgusted
There is only One God. There cannot be Gods.
You say God doesn't exist but do you believe in truth? Do you believe in reality? Do you believe there is a amway things actually are?
-->
@Mopac
You always avoid my statement of fact and amway is a ponsi scheme. Respond to my fact and you will lose, that's why you avoid it.
An English language convention doesn't prove your god any different to any other god. You have been lied too.
-->
@Mopac
God loves you. Repent and believe The Good News. The Truth is what sets you free.
Sorry, but no gods or God has ever been shown to exist. There is no Good News or Truth that has been shown to exist other than in books of myth and superstition.
Show me God and I'll reconsider.
-->
@Goldtop
Sorry, but no gods or God has ever been shown to exist. There is no Good News or Truth that has been shown to exist other than in books of myth and superstition.
You like to use word play, God/gods have surely been "shown" to exist through many, many years of observation and corresponding sources. Your word play is "shown", because now you can play and pretend from which source is legit in "showing" that gods exist. It's a dirty play, you know darn well that testimonial evidence and theistic knowledge have been more than shown to exist, there isn't even a close runner up of any topic of discussion that's been more shown to exist. What you wish to do, is claim only one limited source of knowledge (science) and use that foul play to support your ignorant claim, however science (the study of the NATURAL world) is incompetent to "show" anything outside the "physical" world to exist and so the claim is inferior and immature. But nice try, "books of myth and superstition" is your opinion not a fact.
Show me God and I'll reconsider.
All knowledge is at your finger tips. All observation comes through participation.
-->
@EtrnlVw
You like to use word play, God/gods have surely been "shown" to exist through many, many years of observation and corresponding sources.
That is entirely false. The only reference to God/gods comes from holy books written centuries ago. That's it.
you know darn well that testimonial evidence and theistic knowledge have been more than shown to exist,
And, it has been explained to you dozens of times that testimonials are not evidence for the existence of something and that there is no such thing as "theistic knowledge", there is only knowledge.
however science (the study of the NATURAL world) is incompetent to "show" anything outside the "physical" world to exist and so the claim is inferior and immature
No, what is immature is claiming to know something you don't know, and you certainly don't know if any God/gods exist.
"books of myth and superstition" is your opinion not a fact.
You nor anyone else has ever shown those books to be anything other than myths and superstitions.
-->
@Goldtop
@disgusted
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God. This is the One God I recognize.
-->
@Mopac
You've repeated that hundreds of times and it is still as empty as when you said it the first time. Meaningless words.The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God
So, there's no reason for you to keep repeating it.
-->
@Goldtop
No, they are not meaningless words. They are meaningless to you because you do not accept God is what God is.
So you aren't even talking about the same thing as me. You have an aversion to the word "God". That is what it looks like to me.
You can't deny my God without being ridiculous.
The problem is not with theist or atheists. The problem is;
1} following or not following rational, logical common sense pathways of thought { mind/intellect/concept }
2} definning " G "od/" U "niverse, and its subset God/Universe.
Macro-infinite non-occupied space is not two infinite things.
It is one macro-infinite set.
This above and below is resultant of rational, logical common sense pathways of thought and a minimal brainer for those who do not fear truth.
Finite, occupied space Universe/God is multiple things.
1} physical/energy as fermionic matter ---spirit-2 ergo Observed Time as occupied space
2} physical/energy as bosonic forces spirit-2 ergo Observed Time as occupied space
3} a new discovered additional 3rd catagory physical/energy { ergo another cosmic susbet trinity } of physical/energy ergo occupied space,
4} gravity ( ) --metaphyscial-3, spirit-3 as occupied space,
5} dark energy )( --metaphysical-4, and spirit-4 as occupied space.
-->
@Goldtop
Anyone who says they know what free will is... are a bald faced liar.Anyone who says they know what God is... are a bald faced liar.Is that your legacy?
Is that your legacy?
-->
@Goldtop
Have you seen free will existing before you? If not, how do you "know" free will exists?Something MUST exist to us before it can be known to exist for us. You can't know of something until you observe it existing in front of you.While the Moon exists, I've never been there, hence I don't know it. I observe it regularly through my telescopes and can visit museums to see the rocks brought back from there. This is my extent of knowing the Moon.Have you seen God existing before you? If not, how you do you "know" God exists?
You can't even identify it accurately enough to measure it within yourself, much less reliably (empirically) identify it in anything else.
-->
@Goldtop
Your logic is airtight.Because I know what God means, so I can know that God exists.I know what unicorns and leprechauns mean. So what? They don't exist.Fairies, pixies, ghosts, goblins are all in the Dictionary. According to you, they all exist.See how your argument has no validity?
-->
@3RU7AL
No, his logic is not "airtight".
Rational, logical common sense is the missing element as oxygen, in this conceptual "airtight" tight container.
Biological unicorns do not exist. Virtual unicorns only exist via pixels/electrons and drawings/paintings.
Conceptual unicorns exist only via access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.
Access to metaphysical-1, mind/intlect/concepts to greatest degree is unique to humans.
-->
@mustardness
It is one macro-indefinite set.It is one macro-infinite set.
The terms "infinite" and "set" are mutually exclusive.
-->
@Outplayz
Every time i say this is my belief, i believe, i'm confident; what i mean is i believe said opinion more than not. Like a 70/30 thing.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. You sound like a reasonable person.
Actually, i can even concede that space-time is finite but always infinitely expanding.
Actually, I can even concede that space-time is finite but always indefinitely expanding.
I'm sorta a fictional realist. I believe every reality we can think of exists. The platform being space-time, but everything happening within it could be different. Different laws, molecules, energy, etc.
There are certainly a lot of as-of-yet undiscovered phenomena that are interesting to speculate about, however, I believe that you'll find the word "exists" itself can only apply to verifiable phenomena.
I don't fully get what you mean by indivisible. It cannot be separated?
Anything unbounded, unlimited, and technically infinite would supersede and obliterate all other possible existence, both real and imaginary.
Think about it for a second. If there was no boundary between real and imaginary, if there was no boundary between empty and not empty, if there was no boundary between space-time and planet, there could only be one or the other.
The infinite must be unnameable, unidentifiable, and indivisible.
In other words, you can have an indefinite number of indefinitely large or expansive phenomena coexisting together, but even one infinite thing would make any coexistence logically impossible.
An infinite intelligence would explain a lot imho.
We might speculate that humans could possibly develop some sort of hyper-intelligence, but I would have to say that infinite intelligence is logically impossible simply because "infinite" and "intelligence" (or "any nameable thing") is a contradiction in terms.
-->
@3RU7AL
It is one macro-indefinite set.
Huh? Bru, I think you have confused the word define/definite with boundary, parameter etc.
The terms "infinite" and "set" are mutually exclusive.
This in not true with mathematicians who use the terms 'infinite set' commonly.
There exists one, macro-infinite space. Not two infinites in that set or what ever you will allow it to be labled as.
Macro-infinite non-occupied space is not two infinite things.
Three primary kinds of space exist:
1} concept of space ergo metaphysical1-, mind/intellect/concepts
2} macro-infinite space --only one of these exist---,
3} finite, occupied space --only one of these exist---.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
0} " U "niverse/" G "od is inclusive of 1, 2 and 3 above.
Universe/God is subset of " U "niverse/" G "od as only #3 above.
Outplaz's multiple local-universe scenarios attempt to do away with a unified, sum-total Universe, by saying the local universes are moving away from each other at speeds faster-than-the speed of radiation ergo faster than speed-of-gravity if not also dark energy.
That scenario is best considered in its own thread, that Ive done with OutP, however, after a time he never responds, here at DArt and DDO.
If you agree, that, we live a finite, occupied space Universe, then there can only be one rational, logical conclusion and that is what is outside, is macro-infinite non-occupied space.
There exist, no other rational, logical common sense to this conclusion, and the best I recall, you conceded that conclusion with me at DDO a year or so ago.
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe that you'll find the word "exists" itself can only apply to verifiable phenomena.
Exist Full Definition from merriam-webster
- 1 a : to have real being whether materialor spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions <strange ideas existed in his mind>
- 2 : to continue to be <racism still exists in society>
- 3 a : to have life or the functions of vitality <we cannot exist without oxygen>b : to live at an inferior level or underadverse circumstances <the hungry
intransitive verb
Nowhere here is being verifiable part of the definition.
You are confusing scientifically existing with existing. For something to exist scientifically, it must be known to exist, because science means knowledge. Something can exist without being known.
Omniscience doesn't mean infinite intelligence, it means "all knowledge".
There is a difference. To say that God is omniscient is to state the obvious that all knowledge is contaimed within The Ultimate Reality. As your thoughts do exist in some form, your thoughts are known to God.
The probelm with atheists is still that they don't actually argue against God when they make arguments against God's existence. They argue about their superstitions. They argue against idols.
No one can deny The Ultimate Reality without making themselves into a fool.
-->
@Mopac
I actually agree with you 100% on this point.Omniscience doesn't mean infinite intelligence, it means "all knowledge".
-->
@Mopac
Something can exist without being known.
This might be true, but we can't say positively that any particular thing "exists" without proper qualification.
For example, unicorns exist in stories and strange thoughts may exist in people's minds and racism may exist in human societies.
Each of these must be understood by and clearly defined by both parties to a conversation in order to be considered to "have real being".
Here's another example, you probably believe in radio waves because we have overwhelming evidence that radio waves exist.
We also have reason to believe that radio waves existed long before they were discovered.
However, if someone believed in radio waves in the middle ages and claimed that radio waves existed but was unable to produce any evidence whatsoever, it would be fair to dismiss this belief as the ravings of a madman.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, so something doesn't have to be known to exist in order to exist.
So I understand how an atheist would dismiss God as the ravings of a madman, not unlike someone arguing for the existence of radio waves in the middle ages.
However, the main difference here is that atheists tend to dismiss God because they don't really even know what it is they are dismissing. It is a position that comes from a fundamental ignorance of the concept. They don't really argue against God, they argue against their superstitions of God and cannot tell the difference.
A lot of atheists will mock theists because they are projecting. The ones who prop up science like some big idol very rarely are actual scientists. They simply believe what they read. They have their priests, their teachers. They are impressed into believing things because of the miracles that are performed to them through technology. They are no better than those they mock, and not only are they usually just as superstitious and sometimes even more so than the ones they mock, but they have literally adopted a position they are too inept to realize actually means "there is no truth, there is no reality". That is what it means to deny God.
Atheism is intellectually empty. Atheists would be better off becoming monotheists and instead debate about the nature of God.
-->
@3RU7AL
This might be true, but we can't say positively that any particular thing "exists" without proper qualification.
While that's Mopac's argument the Creator and all legit concepts involved are not without proper qualification and OR observation. Rather, I find it to be more about perceptions and what people find "absurd".
For example, unicorns exist in stories and strange thoughts may exist in people's minds and racism may exist in human societies.Each of these must be understood by and clearly defined
Not a good example, this is why I find this to be an intellectual shortcut for people that don't believe in a Creator. They compare creation to absurd examples when in fact creationism is by fay one of the most rational, common sense theories there is, it's not an absurd concept and has a vast array of propositions and evidences. Theistic concepts are clearly defined. Ask me anything you would like.
-->
@3RU7AL
There are certainly a lot of as-of-yet undiscovered phenomena that are interesting to speculate about, however, I believe that you'll find the word "exists" itselfcan only apply to verifiable phenomena.
Now we are getting to the science, so this is true for how we verify knowledge. But, how do you test for something like existence? How can we prove existence? There are certain phenomena that could exist that we have no way to test for or understand.
Actually, I can even concede that space-time is finite but always indefinitely expanding.
This is sorta what i believe. By infinite i guess i mean it has no end. For both space-time and the eternal mind hypothesis i speculate this could be true. I am starting to understand i don't believe it either the way you define it.
In other words, you can have an indefinite number of indefinitely large or expansive phenomena coexisting together, but even one infinite thing would make any coexistence logically impossible.
I understand now what you mean per se. I just don't get how it applies to space-time. Remember, i am saying the platform is infinite and everything else within it is finite. It's like a canvas. Just bc you have an infinite canvas to draw on doesn't mean you can't draw where ever you want on it. That is what i think the mind is doing on the infinite canvas called space-time. This is why i believe a mind can beat infinite regress... or even your problems with infinity.
We might speculate that humans could possibly develop some sort of hyper-intelligence, but I would have to say that infinite intelligence is logically impossible simply because "infinite" and "intelligence" (or "any nameable thing") is a contradiction in terms.
I am starting to change my definitions a bit. Maybe i don't mean infinite, but just endless. So, it can be an intelligence that is forever conscious but always present. Therefore, it is finite up until the point of its awareness. This could also be a possibility. I'm not the type to be stuck on only one possible outcome. However, i do not think it is logically impossible to have a higher consciousness... I actually think it is a certainty that there is one (or more).
Maybe you don't believe the same way i do bc you think things are finite-ish. See, given endless space-time, it is not only possible but probable for there to be other intelligence's. The source i talk about is simply something like a universal mind. Even if i didn't go with the i think this mind is everything, it could be a mind in another universe that became conscious (boltzmann brain idea). I think this is highly probably bc i don't see space-time having an end. And... given that much time, and the fact that it isn't an impossibility for intelligence to exist given we are here, i believe (more on the 90% for this one) that there has to be other intelligence out there... i just also believe that a source for life is another possible implication of intelligence simply being real given endless time.
-->
@Outplayz
There are certain phenomena that could exist that we have no way to test for or understand.
These potential phenomena should be referred to as hypotheses.
By infinite i guess i mean it has no end.
I'd say, "practically no end", or unknown potential limit, or beyond our ability to measure.
It's like a canvas. Just bc you have an infinite canvas to draw on doesn't mean you can't draw where ever you want on it.
The canvas is a good example. A canvas is (practically) limited to two dimensions. If you had a truly infinite canvas, it would expand in every direction and every possible dimension, making it impossible to paint on (and obliterating every other possible thing in existence including paint).
Maybe i don't mean infinite, but just endless.
I'd qualify that as "practically endless" or unmeasurable or indefinite.
See, given endless space-time, it is not only possible but probable for there to be other intelligence's.
See, given indefinite and adequately immense space-time, it is not only possible but probable for there to be other intelligences.
However, until other intelligences are verified in some way, this viewpoint is merely an interesting hypothesis and should not be mistaken for anything resembling what we might call a fact.
-->
@EtrnlVw
They compare creation to absurd examples when in fact creationism is by fay one of the most rational, common sense theories there is, it's not an absurd concept and has a vast array of propositions and evidences.
I'm willing to grant you a hypothetical deistic being for the sake of argument.
Can you draw a straight line between a deistic being and any particular theistic tradition?
I mean, for all conceivable practical intents and purposes, as far as I can tell, a deistic belief is functionally identical to atheism.
-->
@Mopac
In the same way that the ancient lunatic can not offer any practical reason to believe in radio waves, the person advocating for acknowledgement of noumenon is going to have a lot of trouble explaining exactly why this is of the slightest importance to the average person.However, the main difference here is that atheists tend to dismiss God because they don't really even know what it is they are dismissing.
-->
@3RU7AL
These potential phenomena should be referred to as hypotheses.
Remember when i say believe it's a 70/30 thing never a certainty. So, i have no problem calling anything that i believe out side the box a hypotheses, speculation, conjecture.
I'd say, "practically no end", or unknown potential limit, or beyond our ability to measure.
I don't mind defining it that way bc that is technically true if we are concentrating on the meaning of each phrase. We certainly can't measure infinity or even really think of it with our limited/finite brains.
However, until other intelligences are verified in some way, this viewpoint is merely an interesting hypothesis and should not be mistaken for anything resembling what we might call a fact.
I agree with that. I would never call it fact... again it's a 70/30 thing. There are facts that have gotten me to this conclusion in the form of spiritual experiences i have had that point to such speculation... in the end of the day however, i have no clue if i have pieced what i know together correctly. It's just the current spiritual platform i believe answers the most questions for me, and that's all i care about. IF it is logical and possible, then i'm okay with saying i am spiritual... but, i'll never assert i am right, just like i will fight anyone telling me i am not right. My advantage is that i have tried to piece together the most logical platform given what we know so far... so, i already know it's impossible to prove and to refute. It's a big interesting maybe.
The canvas is a good example. A canvas is (practically) limited to two dimensions. If you had a truly infinite canvas, it would expand in every direction and every possible dimension, making it impossible to paint on (and obliterating every other possible thing in existence including paint).
Okay, i posted this last so i can concede the above definitions first. Bc i don't see why i couldn't call it how i did above and for things to still make sense. I'm okay with endless, indefinite, etc. However, i still don't understand what you mean. You have to address why you don't think finite events could happen on an infinite platform. I get what you mean that the canvass wouldn't have any boundaries, but i don't understand why finite events can't just happen anywhere on this canvass. It's not that every single part of space is filled with something... maybe there are points where it's just space, i.e. no paint ... but you can have paint where ever you want on the canvass. The key here is an intelligence making it making it work. Maybe without that you are right and it wouldn't work (but i still don't see that either)... but, if you have a painter, then it doesn't matter how infinite the canvass is.
While i was saying this analogy something else interesting came to mind. If it is a mind drawing a picture on this canvass, usually the closer you get to the actual picture or the focus of the painting there would be less entropy. The further away there is more entropy bc it isn't the focus of the painting. It's interesting how that is the same for us too. The closer you get to life the less entropy the further you get more... it's almost like an art piece. That my stab at intelligent design for the day.
-->
@3RU7AL
That would certainly be a discussion on religion.
In the context of religion being relationship to God, it helps to know what it is you are relating to. Relationship to a rock is not the same as relation to The Truth.
-->
@Mopac
Relationship to a rock is not the same as relation to The Truth
What is the practical functional difference between the two? In neither case is there any observable indication that the relationship is more than one sided.