Mopac

It is possible that evolution is true(I don't know).

What scientific method has been followed? What makes evolution science?

It doesn't make sense to you.

Because this is what God means, and your understanding of what God means is wrong.

Yet, reality as it truly is happens to be what I call God.

That is what I call my God.

Do you see reality standing in front of you?

And if I'm delusional, how do I know what my delusions are?

What is reality?

How do I join reality?

The dictionary is not an argument for the existence of my God. It establishes that I'm not just making up what I'm saying. It makes clear what exactly it is I am talking about.

The Ultimate Reality is what I acknowledge as my God, and this is not an innovation.

So when I say God I am very specifically talking about this, not the superstitious baggage you attach to the concept of God.

But you immediately reject, which takes about as much thought as someone who immediately believes. None. 

Yet here I am, not withholding anything. I want you to understand, it is not my intention to confuse or mystify you. It is not my intention to condemn you. I am not selling you anything. I have no reason to be deceitful. You accuse me of being a liar, but I can tell you that I believe what I say. You don't have to believe me, but I believe you believe what you say, even if you really are being deceitful. I don't make that judgement call.

So if you could show me a little charity, we might be able to come to an understanding.

Because you don't believe in truth?

Not my truth. The Truth. No lying to yourself necessary.

Your accusations are worthless because everyone can plainly see that you are arguing that the dictionary is not as authoritative as you when it comes to the defining of terms.

Your argument is ludicrous.

That's actually all you have. Petulantly arguing against the dictionary like the deranged lunatic you make yourself by persisting this line of argument.

"The dictionary is not an authority when it comes to the defining of terms!"

That is your argument.

All atheist arguments are contingent on defining God to be something other than what God is because even atheists know that arguing  "It is the truth that there is no truth" is stupid and would make them the laughing stock of anyone who has even a modicum of sense.

That isn't my argument.

And by the way, none of these critters which are certainly in the dictionary are defined as being THE ULTIMATE REALITY.

So since I understand what that means, I know that it even by definition exists. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't fulfill the definition.

Since you take God as not existing, you are not respecting the definition. You aren't even talking about the same thing as me.

There is no weapon formed against God that can prosper.

I don't think it is so hard to admit that The Truth exists.

Because I know what God means, so I can know that God exists.

If you knew what is meant by God you would know that God exists too.

It is something that everyone has performed all the necessary experimentation to know.

That's what you say, but you don't really know that.

If a truth dies, does The Truth die? Of course not. That is the real mystery of the risen Jesus.

I understand what you are saying, but something does not have to be known in order to exist. Something has to be known in order to exist scientifically. Something doesn't have to be known in order to exist. Something must have being or be real in order to exist. It is not necessary that something must be known in order to exist, and the dictionary I am looking at makes this very clear.

Before a moon of Saturn was discovered or even thought of, it certainly existed even though it was unknown. The Ultimate Reality is not known, but it certainly exists, and it has to exist, because without it there is no reality.

There exists that which surpasses understanding and knowledge, and is greater. than either. The Truth. Without this, there is no knowledge, simply vain imaginings.

But really, if you want to get sucked into an epistemological black hole, I can tell you that I am not even 100% certain I exist. I can tell you with 100% certainty that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality exists. There is nothing else I am more certain of, and though I do not know it, I know it exists, and everything in all creation testifies of it. 

You don't have to know The Ultimate Reality to know it is.

I don't know God, but itnis evident that God is there. If The Truth doesn't exist, how could their even be truths? 

Besides that, if The Ultimate Reality was contingent on thought, how would this reality be ultimate? There is a reality that has authority over what is said to be ultimate reality, and therefore such proclaimed ultimate reality couldn't be The Ultimate Reality.

With The Ultimate Reality, there are no thoughts

There is nothing confused about admitting you are wrong. There is nothing irrational or illogical about admitting that The Truth is more correct than what you think about The Truth. It is childish to deny reality.

My beliefs are wrong and so are yours. To admit this is to admit sin. 

The Ultimate Reality is what is true, and that is what God is. That is something that goes beyond anyone's belief on the matter.

What would that ontological disagreement be if you don't mind me asking?

Yet, you yourself can look up the original Greek and. see for yourself what the words mean.

I think maybe you are more upset that the scripture doesn't say what you want it to say. Translating texts is not easy, and human error does occur.

What I'm saying is in line with scholarship. What you are saying is a projection of your own arbitrariness and lack for real respect of truth.

The translation you are mocking is over 300 years old by the way. A fine translation, but no translation is perfect.

And even then, scripture is not taken as an idol before God, and that is a message that is ingrained in scripture.

I can certainly accept that.

However the word "noumena" I wouldn't call a name of God because it implies that God is contingent on thought. The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on thought, thought would be contingent on The Ultimate Reality.

Glass house

So what if I am, are you going to mock me mercilessly for it?

Maybe you should be more charitable towards people you think are stupid, lest your haughtiness reflects back on yourself.

Since there are more than one noumenons, I would say by definition these realites, which I do agree they are realities albeit unkowable ones, cannot be ultimate. I am not that familiar with Kant, but I know it essential that The Ultimate Reality by definition must be one. 

But that said, these are still all good connections. There many names of God in Jewish thought, The Ungraspable Infinite is certainly one of them. The problem with any name is that they are abstractions. You have to take away in order to highlight. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is among the best names for God, but even this name doesn't bypass this problem. The Holiest Name is not really a name in the sense of a pronouncement of syllables.

Or as it is written in The Tao te Ching  "The Name(or way) that can be named is not The Eternal Name(or The Way)".

This assertion made in this ancient Chinese text is actually very much in line with theological thought in the west.

I think a peculiar thing to meditate on is that the name "Jesus" is pronounced differently in most every language despite the fact that there is a church that spreads across national and ethnic borders. This is intentional, because a major overarching theme of the new testament is that "the letter kills, the spirit gives life".

That isn't to say there are not some who make the pronouncement of these names an issue, but they are mislead. All of these names actually have meanings. For example, even Jesus means "God is Salvation", which pretty much means "The Truth will set you free".

You take something like the name of God that Jews respectfully replace with "Lord" or "Adonai", this name is a meaningless string of syllables to the average English speaker. These names actually have meanings that are a matter of identity, and on a deeper level and meaning than how names tend to be commonly used.

No Stepehen , you are still not accepting my answer.

It is definitely a translation issue. First point.

Second point. The man Jesus has to go away to fulfill everything before, that Jesus has to go away so they receive the Spirit of Truth.

Are you saying that Zeus is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality?

Look at you, making fun of retarded people. High and mighty you must feel.

God made you, so God must have done something right.

You say that, but theologians for thousands of years claim otherwise, and so do I.

Surely, the only being that even meets all the criteria for God is The Ultimate Reality, and this alone should make it obvious.

I am certainly not making this up, and it isn't just Jews and Christians who understand this. Even Muslims understand this. Sikhs understand this. Ba'ha understand this.

Yes, there is theological consensus about this, and you simply being contrary is not going to change the facts.

Yet, if you asked a Rabbi the meaning of the name that was given to Moses by God in scripture, you'd get a contrary answer.

The bible wasn't written in English. What we get in English are translations.

Yet for some reason, there is theological consensus on what God means. A consensus that has existed for thousands of years. A consensus you are in vain opposition to.

The bible certainly supports my claims, but I don't worship the bible. I don't worship the bible because I understand what it is saying. 

The bible is not to be taken as an idol before God.

And I say that with the utmost reverence towards these scriptures.

The letter kills, the spirit gives life.

Yes, there is a difference between "God" and "god".

Not all languages have this problem. As an example, in Arabic the word for God is Allah, and the word for god is illah. This makes matters confusing for English speakers as God and god have the same pronunciation, and using "god" at the beginning of a written sentence makes it look like God.

So capital "G" God means "Ultimate Reality" or "Supreme Being" depending on the dictionary. They both mean the same thing. 

It is not surprising that you have never heard this definition because the vast majority of people, theist, atheist, or otherwise has a superstitious conception of God. 

So really, denying God is not a reasonable position. Instead it is more fruitful to debate about what God is, what God isn't, the nature of God, etc. 

Because when someone is an atheist towards this particular God, they are denying truth and reality. I don't really believe that most atheists are aware of this, but that is actually what their position means. I think it would also be interesting to note that Christians were called atheists back in ancient Rome, an identity that most people today would consider to be ludicrous to attach to a Christian.

The Monotheist God is The Ultimate Reality. This is true in certain sects of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc. The concept is even present in Buddhism, Taoism, and just about any tradition on the planet.

And though I myself identify as a Christian and have my theological education in that tradition, I must admit this is a universal concept.

So that is your good news for the day. The Ultimate Reality is God. That is something that transcends culture, tradition, conception, everything.

It Is What It Is.

That of course has nothing to do with the vast majority of Christian writings not being in English, yes?

But if you pick up just about any work of Augustine, he makes it very clear that this is God. It's stated pretty clearly in nearly all of his writings.

Not an argument.

I admitted my ignorance and am asking you to teach me.

How am I being egotistical, and where do you figure I don't want to learn?

Maybe you don't want to teach.

Merriam-webster literally defines capital G God as The Supreme or Ultimate Reality which is in line with theology, and not simply Christian theology either.

So yes, Ultimate Reality means that God exists, because existence is an essential quality of God. If you make God something that doesn't exist, you are not actually talking about God because God is that which is ultimately real.

You say that the dictionary defines words so that we can understand eachother, and then reject the definition so that there is no understanding. 

You aren't even talking about God, because you are talking about a god or gods.

As you can plainly see, God with a capital "G" in English means The Supreme or Ultimate Reality.

But it isn't empty because this is the monotheist God, and by rejecting this meaning, you are simply being willfully ignorant.

You reduce God to the very gods that monotheists have argued against for centuries. This is the very most fundamnetal premise, and if you don't accept you aren't going to understand anything that follows.

So yeah, it is very important.

Well, people have problems even with simple things.

Discipleship means discipline. People don't tend to have discipline simply on hearing.

That simply isn't true, my position is in line with scholarship.

So it is actually the ones who dispute what I'm saying that are doing what you accuse me of.

See what I mean?

So all I can tell you is that when I say God, it means The Ultimate Reality.

That is also what the concept means, so if you don't accept this you might as well be saying that a tree is a rock.

That is what God means.

It only sounds unreasonable because you don't know that is what the concept of God means.

Now you know.

I think that is some good news for the day.

The Truth is life. TheTruth is eternal.

A pronouncement of syllables is not God.

The Ultimate Reality is God.

Do you know what that means?

What that points to is The Holy Name, The Eternal Name that is not uttered with words.

The letter kills, the spirit gives life.