Vote on debate

You don't really understand what you are talking about.

You can't even admit that The Ultimate Reality exists.

How do you expect to go anywhere like that?

It's not about me being right. It's not about anybody being right.

The common ground is that The Ultimate Reality is right.

Without this common grounnd, there can be nothing but strife.

Then retract your unsupportable claims about the ultimate reality so that I can agree. You are the one arguing that he has special knowledge. I am not asking you to accept anything let alone something I cannot demonstrate. Give it a try at home and see how it goes. Look in the mirror and say "although the ultimate reality exists I have no idea what it could be like because I cannot observe it" then get back to me.

The Ultimate Reality exists no matter what I or anyone else says about it.

Don't be a fooll!

I already told you the reason these things can't be demonstrated to you is because you don't understand the claims to begin with.

But if you are going to reject The Truth because claims made about The Truth are not true, I'd say that is pretty idiotic, and that is exactly what you are doing!

It's really very simple. 

Have you observed the ultimate reality, yes or no?

Have you observed the hair beetween my ass cheeks, yes or no?

We are talking about what is ultimately real, have you no sense? Are you truly this arbitrary?

How do you function?

Your invincible ignorance and stubborn refusal to admit the truth will not overthrow reality.

Why is it so important to you that nothing is real? Are you trying to justify yourself? And don't tell me that "oh I believe in reality", because if you can't say "The Ultimate Reality exists" you do not truly admit to believing in reality. You are simply being a weasel.

And what is the purpose of this?

You don't want to admit that God exists, probably because it'll make you the laughing stock of all your pseudointellectual and godless friends who can't tell shit from shinola. 

Your position is indefensible and foolish.

That was a lot of words with which to say neither yes or no. Odd since yes or no was all that was required. You have given me much that was not required by my question and not provided what was. 

How can I rephrase the question "have you observed the ultimate reality?" so that it becomes possible for you to answer with a yes or no?

In other words, you are asking me if I observe everything that exists exactly the way it is?

Of course not.

But I know everything exists exactly the way it is because I'm not a bloody moron.

Is that a no Then? Can you say "no I have not observed it"?

And that is a very solid answer to your question.

No, I have not observed The Ultimate Reality, but "through a glass, darkly".

And I can still say with boldness that The Ultimate Reality exists.

You have not observed the ultimate reality then you cannot make any claims about it other than that it exists that are not merely conjecture.

I can say with boldness that there is some number of blades of grass in my lawn but I would be committing an argument from ignorance if I were to claim to know if it were an even number. If I added that an even number is the only possibility that makes any logical sense to me and that an odd number of blades of grass was ridiculous we could add an argument from incredulity to the list. If I went on to state thay anyone who thinks an odd number of blades of grass are possible is an idiot with retarded views we can add an ad hominem attack to the list of logical fallacies being committed.

Are you prepared to go forward without logical fallacies or are they integral to your argument?

Irrelevent.

The Ultimate Reality exists.

Confess.

Until we have cleared this up it is the only relevant issue.

I claim The Ultimate Reality exists.

We will go nowhere until you confess. That is truly what is relevent.

In so many ways you can confess while beating around it. Now say it directly, or you are wasting your time. You are being deceptive, and you are projecting your deceptive nature on me, one with whom there is no guile. You think I am trying to trap you, because this is what you try to do.

Now confess The Ultimate Reality exists, or we go nowhere.

I  will not step over the epistemological precipice you present me. That there is logically some noumana does not give you licence to say that any rejection of your personal interpretation of the kalam cosmological argument amounts to a denial of reality. Sorry failure to accept, are you more comfortable with that than rejection of?

I'm not using the KCA.

The Ultimate Reality exists.

This is not an argument. This is The Truth, and you not confessing it is tantamount to you admitting you are full of shit.

Your argument bears remarkable similarity to the kalam argument. It doesn't really matter the jump from reality exists to some transcendent eternal force being or object is unsupportable by the evidence. I do notvaccept that everything that begins to exist necessarily must have a cause. This is not the same as saying that nothing is real.

You are talking to yourself again, luny toons. You certainly aren't addressing me.

The Ultimate Reality exists.

Confess The Truth.

I will admit that some reality most likely exists and that I have perceptions that seem real. These perceptions leave me with no reason to accept more than that and they are the only perceptions that I have. If that is not enough then I cannot give you what you want.

Some reality most likely exists.

That's the best you can do?

Well, I can show you from this that some reality certainly exists.

It is a reality that you are having an experience.

As this is a reality that exists, reality certainly exists.

Can you admit that reality certainly exists, or do you have a problem?

Most likely and almost certainly are the furthest I will go on any subject withou first qualifying my statement. I thought you knew that about me.

Well, I don't believe that you will always be sick. I hope for you to be cured.

What we have reached here is the crux of how absurd your approach is. You can't say that reality certainly exists, when there is nothing reasonable about being in doubt about this.

I don't know. Maybe. But that is the case with me. Beliefs are not a choice but a realization. That is why new opinions and information are just abput all that can change them and often not even that. You claim that the problem is bad language. I agree. Your language does not seem to have words for the concepts I am trying to communicate.

I used to be a hard skeptic and a chaos magician. I know more about where you are coming from than you realize.

Just a tiny bit of faith helps. You really can't go anywhere without it. It is a choice to believe something is possible.

All sins are forgiven, but there is one sin that can't forgiven. The sin of not accepting that your sins can be forgiven. If you do not accept forgiveness, you cannot receive it. And what is a sin but to be off the mark?

You keep making references to magic. You understand that I do not believe in magic? I'm not certain why you continue misrepresenting me if you understand me.

 

I do not choose to believe anything. I simply believe what is observable true (with the understanding that even this may not be an accurate reflection of reality).

What sins? Forgiven by whom? Off th mark? As in wrong? Why would we need forgiveness for that? It is part of the human condition. What is the consequence in practical terms of this forgiveness, that is does it have any observable physical effect on a person?

If you believe what is observably true, you still believe that reality definitely exists. That isn't the same as believing that what you observe is true reality.

If you don't believe you can be forgiven, what is the point in not stubbornly going to the grave doing what you know is wrong? If you know you are forgiven, it frees you to repent, or turn away from evil. So yes, it does have a real physical effect on a person, because physics is the study of causality, and if a realization causes someone to behave differently, tgis would be a physical effect on the world.

What sins? What evil? Forgiven by whom? Repent of What? Until you answer these questions your above post is mostly gibberish. 

I think you are making an assumption on the basis of materialism. I'd wager that physical evidence is probably preferred on an epistemological basis.  

It is a mystery, that is, something to be experienced, not understood.