A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.

Author: zedvictor4

Posts

Total: 436
#61
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Show me God.
Physically?

The truism nor the atheist has ever sought to deny the existence of a god. 
That's not true at all. It is fundamental to the atheist to deny God(s) whether it be through rejection or the refusal of acknowledgement.

In fact the atheist and the truism emphatically state that the existence of a god cannot be disproved.
Once again, that's because nonexistence is an epistemological absurdity. No one knows, by virtue of the concept of knowledge, that which does not exist. Acknowledging a god in any form renders it existent.

Nor has the truism or the atheist asked that the theist should prove the existence of a god. 

Nor has the atheist or the truism suggested that the theist should stop believing in a god.
The posited truism has attempted to argue a symmetry that does not apply. Nonexistence is an epistemological absurdity. Existence is not. Therefore, while the nonexistence of God cannot be proven, the existence of God can; hence your truism is not a truism at all.

Therefore the atheist is being honest.

All that the atheist asks is for the theist to also be honest and accept the truism.

So why can theists not be honest?
Why would a theist accept a truism that's not a truism? I've proven the existence of God using two solid arguments. You instead ask that God be shown to you. And this wouldn't be difficult at all. I could show you God. If I were to show you this entity God, I'm certain that you'd have criteria that must be met in order to substantiate this entity's being God. So you haven't really answered my question: what do you consider appropriate in the context of proof?


Topic's author
#62
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
You have a basic misunderstanding of atheism.
The atheist cannot deny something that cannot be denied.
The atheist simply does not believe.

And if gods are not physical then they are an assumption.
And the truism remains just as ever.

Be honest...No amount of your clever words will ever prove the existence of a god.

The honest atheist is certain that they cannot disprove the existence of gods and therefore has nothing to prove.

So the truism remains so.



#63
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
You have a basic misunderstanding of atheism.
The atheist cannot deny something that cannot be denied.
The atheist simply does not believe.



What is the basis of belief if not the acknowledgement of something that is true? Or better yet, what is it that the atheist does not believe in the context where he or she cannot deny the existence of God(s)? By "not believing" you're either denying the conclusion of the belief, or you're ignoring it--i.e. refusal to acknowledge.

And if gods are not physical then they are an assumption.
Never insinuated that God wasn't physical. I intended to gauge your criteria, which amounts to materialist dogma. And the reason is that your concept and standard of physicality are fundamentally based on elements you would consider "assumptions." For example, when you touch something, how are you to know that there's a difference between the sensation of touching something and touching air? Your thoughts rationalize your experience. They give structure to your immeasurable sensation. What about shapes? If an iron sphere and an iron tetrahedron consisted of the same mass, volume, and chemical composition, how would you physically distinguish them? Every physical standard would inform you that they're identical in every way, but your eyes would inform something different.

What about numbers? Numbers aren't found in nature. They don't have physical characteristics, yet they serve as the fundamental basis to every physical science of which you can think. Wouldn't math be an assumption?  And if math were an assumption, wouldn't physical laws, which are defined as "mathematically proven," also be "assumptions"?

My point is, even if we were to concede to your standard of physicality, it would undermine your very own argument. Your invoking the concept of assumption, as if to differentiate its significance as it pertains to existence, is logically inconsistent.

And the truism remains just as ever.
It's not a truism. Once again, nonexistence is epistemologically irrational; therefore, it cannot be proven. Existence is epistemologically rational. Therefore, it can be proven. This doesn't merely apply to God(s.) This is a matter of logic.

Be honest...No amount of your clever words will ever prove the existence of a god.
I have proven the existence of a God twice. Whether it meets your criteria is another matter. Hence, I asked, "what do you consider appropriate in the context of proof?" You asked to be shown God. And I can do that. But even then, it would still require a criteria be met in order to substantiate. I'm going to jump out on a limb, and assume that this criteria would require the exhibition of certain characteristics, as described in the Bible, Torah, Qu'ran, etc. right? If that were the case, there would be an irony in that substantiation would be based on... words.

The honest atheist is certain that they cannot disprove the existence of gods and therefore has nothing to prove.
The only thing an atheist has to prove is the claim, "God does not exist." An atheist doesn't have to prove his or her values as it pertains to God. If you're arguing that atheists cannot disprove God, then proof in the context of your disbelief is irrelevant. And that's fine.


#64
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
If a God came down for a chat, why would it want people to worship?
"came down"?.   That is meangless concept.   Up and down are technically { scientifically } ergo intellectually meaningless words.

At ten - 12 years of age I asked our quasi-Chirstian Science mom where God is located and she pointed to the ceiling.  My mother was walking, talking brain dead on so many issues as were so many country bumpkin parents of my generation.

First and for most, and as ive stated for umpteen years on umpteen threads, talk of God has no significant relevance until there exists common agreement and how do define God.

To date Ive done this on my Cosmic Trinity thread, to which none have ever --and I doubt ever will--- give a more clear, specific omni-inclusive defining of God.  Old news for those who can place their ego to the side and/or are not walking talking brain dead.

#65
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
My mother was walking, talking brain dead on so many issues as were so many country bumpkin parents of my generation.
This explains quite a lot.
Topic's author
#66
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
"Came down" is simply a well used phrase... Check your bible.
Topic's author
#67
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Oddly, for such a wordsmith, you appear to also have a basic misunderstanding of the word belief.
#68
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Oddly, for such a wordsmith,
My being a "wordsmith" just like my being "clever" is irrelevant.

you appear to also have a basic misunderstanding of the word belief.
My description of belief:

What is the basis of belief if not the acknowledgement of something that is true?
And a Google search of the term belief:

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Which part have I misunderstood?

Let's dial it back once again: if you're not denying the existence of a God, then what exactly is it that you do not believe? Even if you are claiming that God is in some quantum state where his existence can neither be proven true or false, that, at best, should make you an "agnostic" not an atheist. In that context, the fundamental basis of your disbelief is your disbelief. It has nothing to do with proof.

"Came down" is simply a well used phrase... Check your bible.
My assumption is all but confirmed. You're seeking a demonstration of "words" you've read.
#69
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
"Came down" is simply a well used phrase... Check your bible.
Meaningless gibberrish and your ego is denial  of this truth. Your need to read and reread message #64 until you can at least understand it much less comprehend  { 3D } or grok it { 4D }.

Without a common definiton of God, you and your type are talking faries vs unicorns vs Lepracauns ergo you need to begin to look of for some intellectual integrity first and foremost.  My Cosmic Trinity is the best to begin with any God disscussion.

Until you can understand { 1D - 2D }, comprehend { 3D } or grok { 4D } my Cosmic Trinity you and your type are just doing mental masturbation on self and each other, without actually engaging any significant intellectual truths or facts,  in regards to God talk.

Topic's author
#70
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ebuc
Spam
#71
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@zedvictor4
Spam
Goobie speak is best you have to offer us, 75%  of the time. Sad :--(

#72
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
He's got you beat on goobie speak by 25% Zed! Sad. Lol.
#73
Iced_Vovo
Iced_Vovo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
0
Iced_Vovo's avatar
Iced_Vovo
0
0
0
-->
@EtrnlVw
To experience things outside the immediate physical sense perception takes getting involved and participation/practice.
Wouldn't this be just another description for delusion?

I raise this since delusion is defined as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument".


#74
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Iced_Vovo
Wouldn't this be just another description for delusion?

No Willard, that's just your personal label for religious knowledge and spirituality. That's what you choose to slap on anything outside your worldview AKA materialism. Grow up a bit, you're acting like a maniac with all these alt accounts. However you seem to be the only one currently replying to me so what the hack eh lol.

I raise this since delusion is defined as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument".

It's not a contradiction or irrational but nice try. It's both consistent and rational, it follows the nature of God and spirituality. Instead of being a naysayer why don't you apply it and try it? how else will you ever learn anything new? you always raise the same objections, I answer them rationally and logically, you ignore and repeat. At some point something has to sink in. 

Here's the other part of that post.....
"it's a matter of explanation and understanding the nature of God (which I think for atheists is the biggest obstacle). One has to be willing to accept the fact that God exists independent of physical matter, as it seems atheists are controlled by what they can physically and immediately see, hear, smell and touch only. But God is not an object of creation, we all exist within the entirety of God so the rules change here dramatically in relation to Theism and it becomes very challenging to debate with people who are used to a certain method and way of viewing reality."

If you want to understand God, you must understand the nature of God first. Everything else should fall right in place. 


#75
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Iced_Vovo
When you wish to learn about something what do you do?

When you wish to try something what do you do?

When you wish to experience something what do you do?

When you wish to become something what do you do?

When you wish to understand something what do you do?


Topic's author
#76
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
What do you do
Process data....Perception stimulates a reaction and will promote a response, which may be regarded as either positive or negative.

A decision....Within a brain, it is decided that a god exists or not.

Though, rhetorical glorification cannot alter the basis of the function....No amount of fanciful words can make a god concept externally real.

So the god concept is real enough inside your head.

But can you be honest and admit that you have no way of converting this internal notion into an external reality?
#77
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
The above is the sort of logical absurdity that strict materialism forces one into.

The human mind is nothing more that a data processor. How shabby a life governed by this belief must be!
#78
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ethang5
Process data....Perception stimulates a reaction and will promote a response, which may be regarded as either positive or negative.

A decision....Within a brain, it is decided that a god exists or not.

That's usually how a choice is made lol, maybe you could contribute something meaningful?

Though, rhetorical glorification cannot alter the basis of the function....No amount of fanciful words can make a god concept externally real.

One shouldn't be looking to make the reality of God external, even though God's hand can be seen in creation. Connection with God and spirituality take place within the inner planes of consciousness, and that happens independent of the mind (and emotions). Try asking how that works?

So the god concept is real enough inside your head.

Obviously.

But can you be honest and admit that you have no way of converting this internal notion into an external reality?

I've answered this dilemma in your own thread, go read it because you have yet to respond to it. Once you engage then I may expound upon it, wouldn't that be the reason for this place?? Sometimes I wonder about your inhibition to engage the content of my posts. 
#79
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.

Can you prove the above statement. Atheists may not have found the evidence that God doesn't exist yet.

The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?

  If you can't prove that atheists can't prove that God doesn't exist and theists can't prove that God does exist then how is it a truism.
#80
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
What is the standard of proof? Does God have to do what he said he would do? Does miracles and bending of reality count as proof? Sounds to me like someone came with an assertion without desire to be convinced.
Topic's author
#81
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ronjs
As things stand the truism is a truism.

And your contrived statements are just that.
Topic's author
#82
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Conditioned rhetoric is as conditioned rhetoric does.

Conditioned rhetoric cannot prove the existence of a god.

All that your conditioned rhetoric does is confirm your own particular internal data set....Mr Ethan refers to this as shabby.

I would say that sinking to the level of "shabby" in a discussion, is shabby.


#83
MayaWilson
MayaWilson's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5
0
0
0
MayaWilson's avatar
MayaWilson
0
0
0
It find it hard to believe that God wants us all meeting up at a clubhouse down the road.
Oh and that he lovessssss it when we sing to him.
I don't know , maybe it's just me. 

#84
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,949
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Only I'd put.  It find it.  
#85
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Conditioned rhetoric is as conditioned rhetoric does.

Lets get something straight here, nothing that I share in this forum is conditioned thinking, if its persuasive that is a good indicator that what I'm saying could certainly be true. I work diligently to undue conditioned thinking, and one has to be willing to get outside the mind to operate in that way. Now, to me it is obvious you have conditioned ways of not only thinking but presuming. One way we can get around all of that is first for you to stop presuming things and second you let me articulate truth by engaging in the content of my posts.

Conditioned rhetoric cannot prove the existence of a god.

You can start with the original posts of mine in your thread, it speaks of the nature of God, this should already be something you are familiar with. Next, is to consider how something of this nature can be connected with but as long as you run nothing can be accomplished. Do you like living in a conditioned state of mind? is that what you are satisfied with?

All that your conditioned rhetoric does is confirm your own particular internal data set....Mr Ethan refers to this as shabby.

What is shabby is your presumptuous attitude and conditioned thinking. That's all you bring to the table. If that were not so not only would you feel free to engage in actual content but you would be willing to open up and explore new insights and knowledge. One way we can break this conditioned thinking of yours is to let me break all this down for you, once you understand what the mind actually is and how it works in creation you won't have to be so afraid of your presumptions and in doing so you won't be so afraid to let down your guard. You can rest assure that what we could discuss won't be the results of conditioned thinking. By now you should be able to pick up on that if you actually read my work.

I would say that sinking to the level of "shabby" in a discussion, is shabby.

You don't have any right to speak of the quality in discussion, you are unable to do so even slightly, if I were you I'd be shaking the cobwebs from my thoughts and mind. All you do is revert to conditioned thinking but not of mine, yours. Show me how non-conditioned you are in a discussion where you are capable of following logic to discover something new, and then by a miracle apply it to your conditioned thinking to maybe break up some of those patterns. So what's it gonna be?


#86
Monte_Carlo
Monte_Carlo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8
0
0
0
Monte_Carlo's avatar
Monte_Carlo
0
0
0
-->
@EtrnlVw
No Willard, that's just your personal label for religious knowledge and spirituality.
No it is not my personal label. And you would know full well that I quoted the definition from the Oxford dictionary, I did not make it up.

Sure, one may have an intelligent discussion about God however there can be no rational argument about God since there is absolutely no substance to the belief that there is anything supernatural.

Just because one is willing to accept the presence of God, it does not authenticate such an identity any more than any other idea that the mind wishes to believe. I wish it were the case mind you since I could go down to the pub (in three months time hopefully) and brag about the dream I had last night which involved me and two other women. I would tell my mates it was true. 
They would then query me and ask who and where these women are. To which I would reply: "Ah, well guys, one has to be willing to accept the fact that Fifi and Kara exist independent of physical matter."
Guess who will pay for the next round.


#87
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Monte_Carlo
Guess who will pay for the next round.
Not you, as you keep getting banned from the pub for public drunkenness, and keep sneaking back in like a loser compulsive alcoholic.
Topic's author
#88
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
Let's get something straight here.

To be a sentient human being is to be conditioned.

You didn't leave the womb clutching the Bible.

It was Mummy and Daddy and  Aunt and Uncle and Brother and Sister and the next door neighbour and the clergyman and the teacher and the television and the internet  etc. etc. that conditioned and produced EtrnlVw.

Your internal database was conditioned, like it or not.

Everything that you present on this website is a product of your conditioned self.

And you and I were conditioned separately and differently....Therefore the conditioned rhetoric that you regard as meaningful, has very little meaning in my head, other than being inconsistent with what and how I was taught to understand.

Nonetheless, at least I am honest and able to freely say that I cannot prove that a god does not exist. 

Whereas you vainly continue to hide from the truth amidst a fog of conditioned ritual-speak.

#89
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Let's get something straight here.

Lol coming from you?

To be a sentient human being is to be conditioned.

The mind is conditioned in all sorts of manner from the moment of birth, the emotions reinforce these conditions….the emotions are conditioned as well. The one observing the mind and emotions are unconditioned whether he knows it or not, he exists in a state where he experiences these conditions. If the observer only knows the observations of the mind and the emotions he is controlled by them, you have a conditioned individual who knows no better. That is not me.

You didn't leave the womb clutching the Bible.

Lol, but I did leave the womb, as well as come into the womb with pre-conscious experience before entering it. I was already thinking about God before I even knew what the concept really was. That is why at the time I was introduced to the Bible I understood it very well.
On the other hand you don't pay attention, the Bible is only a single spiritual source that I have been educated on. 

It was Mummy and Daddy and  Aunt and Uncle and Brother and Sister and the next door neighbour and the clergyman and the teacher and the television and the internet  etc. etc. that conditioned and produced EtrnlVw.

That's only part of the equation Zeddy, people are not doomed to their conditioned states of mind. You need to learn how to follow along that's part of your problem and why discussions don't go very far with you involved. The mind is distinct from the observer which is the soul, and so a person may operate outside of that (conditioned states). 

Your internal database was conditioned, like it or not.

The observer exists independent of the mind and emotions, like it or not. Ask how that works? The observer and the conditioned mind are not one and the same sorry. In a case like yours, you're only controlled by them but they are not who you really are.

Everything that you present on this website is a product of your conditioned self.

No, they are products of what I have observed, I separate what I observe and intuitive feel from that which is taught and conditioned, that is why you see original content from me. I care little for the conditioning of the thoughts and mind. Get that straight. And since this also applies to you that you are just a product of conditioning why are you so adamant about your position and Theists being deluded? isn't that just a conditioned belief?? ever care then to learn something?

And you and I were conditioned separately and differently....Therefore the conditioned rhetoric that you regard as meaningful, has very little meaning in my head, other than being inconsistent with what and how I was taught to understand.

You are in deep, I feel sorry for you at this point.

Nonetheless, at least I am honest and able to freely say that I cannot prove that a god does not exist.

I have been perfectly honest with you at all times, maybe this is a projection? you seem to be fixated on it....your unconditioned self recognizing you are lying to yourself and others.

Whereas you vainly continue to hide from the truth amidst a fog of conditioned ritual-speak.

Lol, nice try. Let me know if you have any questions.

#90
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4

Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.

The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?



What evidence supports these claims?