Total posts: 2,768
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So your definition both does and doesn’t include key terms that makes God God? Depending on how your side of the argument is going.
Equivocation.
You do know how Definitions work?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
So you’re definition of God doesnt include a mind, thoughts, doesn’t judge people, doesn’t have powers, and your definition of God isn’t the Christian God...
Youre equivocating.
When I suggest you’re defining God as mindless and reality only - you object, and say that’s not the definition.
Then I point out that you can’t prove reality has a mind, judges people, etc - so you don’t know whether your God exists - you object saying God is just reality.
You’re literally choosing two definitions depending on what arguments being made.
thia is textbook equivocation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Its what I’ve been saying for like 10 pages now, do you not get that? Or you’re just deliberately misunderstanding because you can’t argue against it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Youre defining God as mindless if you’re defining God as reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The God you are defining is not the Christian God.
The Christian God is more than simply reality. Mind, thought, judging, etc.
If you feel you’re proving the Christian God by saying reality exists - you are equivocating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, I have explained in great detail.
Reality exists, if your definition of God is ONLY reality, then God exists, but it is not the Christian God (more than reality) or any theistic Hod (more than reality).
This means either you cannot prove the Christian God you worship exists, OR you’re deliberately equivocating.
So far you’ve not provided any explanation as to why that’s wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Again - simply shouting at me at how wrong I am doesn’t fix the objective fault in your logic.
I’ve explained multiple times the errors you’re making, and as you’re now capitulating into assertions, I can only surmise that your recognize your own errors and are simply trying to save face.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The either or, is systematic logic, and wholly valid.
I can tell this because of your evasive non answers, and you not bothering to do more than say I am wrong.
Normally, people who know they have a valid argument, make one instead of relying on loudly assertinf the other person is incorrect.
Like I said: God that is defined as reality, and no more - exists, and is meaningless tautology as its basically saying “reality is real.
But that God isnt a theistic God, or the Christian God, or the God you believe in: unless you equivocate definitions.
So this leaves you with two possibilities you can either agree that you use different definitions - equivocation - or you agree that your reality only definitions apply - that you cannot prove a theistic or Christian God exists.
Its one or the other: refusing to acknowledge one or the other, your refusal to answer any question or explain why exactly I am so gosh darn wrong doesn’t change that it is now a binary choice. You’re either wrong, or wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Like I said.
You’re either dishonestly equivocating, or the God you claim exists is not the Christian God of ANY theistic God, or any actual God any human would consider “God” or a “god”.
To be honest, I’m correct both ways around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I’ll ask again:
Do you believe that the God of the Bible exists? That there is a heaven, that he sent Jesus, that he has a mind, that God judges humans, that God has powers to affect humans, answer prayers, etc.
If any of that is true - then I am correct and you’re entire argument is epic equivocation.
if none of that is true - and you believe God is ONLY the reality we see and not anything more, not supernatural, nor personal - then you are not a theist.
Which is it?
You keep not answering any questions when it is demonstrated they’ve you’re wrong either way.
In this case. You’re either equivocating or not a Christian - there is no third option, no matter how many ways you want to pretend there is (and refuse to explain what it is)
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Non sequitor - Im talking about you, and your religion specifically.
Do you believe that the God of the Bible exists? That there is a heaven, that he sent Jesus, that he has a mind, that God judges humans, that God has powers to affect humans, answer prayers, etc.
If any of that is true - then I am correct and you’re entire argument is epic equivocation.
if none of that is true - and you believe God is ONLY the reality we see and not anything more, not supernatural, nor personal - then you are not a theist.
Which is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am being completely reasonable.
You appear to be Christian and Theist - which means it’s fair to presume that you believe God has a mind, he has thoughts, he judges humanity, etc.
Feel free to deny that, and concede that God is merely and only the reality we see around and nothing more - that Jesus and the Bible are not related to the divine, etc.
If you’re not willing or prepared to do that, then my argument stands and is clearly valid - you are deliberately trying to hide your faulty definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
You probably want to google the definition of “implicit”
Whether or not Mopac says that his God has any properties of theistic God (mind, powers, gender, sent Jesus, heaven, hell), is largely irrelevant - as he is a Christian, and is clearly arguing that some form of that Christian God exists - this is evident throughout.
As I said - Mopac is free to correct me by specifically stating that he doesn’t think God has a mind, thoughts, was responsible for the Bible, sent Jesus, has heaven, has powers, Etc), and I will happily concede that His God, which is nothing more than reality - and not the Christian God by any definition; but he’s not going to do that.
As this should be implicit, what you’re doing is basically pissing on my head and telling me its raining - we both know these are implicit definitions of Mopacs God - that he doesn’t come out and say it doesn’t make his position any less invalid. Indeed, it’s the whole premise of that equivocation - which depends on the implicit and hidden change in definitions to work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I am more than happy for Mopac to state that his God has no mind, no thoughts, no powers, no interest in human affairs, has no judgement, nor control of heaven and hell, or any features or properties that go along side any rational God.
This concession would render God almost less than Spinoza or Einsteins pantheistic God.
As Mopac explicitly claims God has a mind a few pages back - that is clearly not the case, given that he also appears to be a Christian - this definition is also antithetical to being a Christian and even a theist at all.
Given that, yes - Mopac implicitly uses this definition
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You're not correcting me, you’re asserting that I am wrong.
While you may not like me pointing out the issues with your argument, this does not mean they are not there, and does not mean any of your arbitrary insistence that you’re not making these errors are valid.
You are, most definitely, repeatedly using two different definitions of God
The first definition is “ultimate reality” - ONLY. No mind, no thoughts, no will, no powers, no interest in human affairs, no judgement, no control of heaven or hell. Nothing - just reality.
The second definition is “ultimate reality, and mind, and thoughts, and powers, and interest in human affairs, and judgement, and control of heaven and hell.” All the properties of a real God.
Reality exist - this means the first definition exists.
You use this to prove God by the SECOND DIFFERENT definition exists.
This is clear and unambiguous equivocation; nonsense definition changing, and logically bankrupt
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I understand your argument, it’s just illogical and bad.
You define your God as reality. Ok
You say reality exists: Ok.
You then imply that God is much more than reality. Meaning that while reality exists - reality with all the properties of God does not.
This is called equivocation.
Your argument is making the same flagrant logical error as this:
I will define “chuck Norris” to mean reality.
Reality exists.
Therefore Reality an roundhouse kick you in the face.
There are two inherent definitions I am using in this argument, the same way you use two definitions of God: one is “only”
reality, the second is “reality, plus mind, plus powers, plus will, plus judgement”.
You swap those definitions halfway through your reasoning the same way I switch the definition of chuck Norris in the above.
Its terrible logic, and I am not sure whether it is pathological reasoning, dishonesty or ignorance through which you don’t recognize your own error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I’m not trying to disprove God - I am showing the logical argument you use to defend your God is logically irrational - which it is.
Your argument appears to really on projection - as sophistry, issues with confusing conceptions with reality, and all other accusation you’ve made - are issues with your own position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.Only definition I have given.
You keep defining God as the ultimate reality. Then go on to say he has a mind. You imply he has super powers, and judge humans.
I mean literally you said it in the next sentence.
So your definition implicitly includes God having a mind, judging us, having super powers, etc: just because you don’t say it out loud, doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply.
Now: even worse, you make an irrational and nonsensical argument that God must have a mind because I do. Why? Why is Gods mind. Dependent on me having a mind or not?
Did God not have a mind before he created humans? This is just nonsensical clap trap that doesn’t appear to have any logical meaning, or applicability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
As should be fairly or even abundantly clear - I’m talking about his specific individual God, and his specific beliefs; in a philosophical sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Let me stop you right there. I am talking about your God.
Here are the things YOUR God has/is - according to your vehement definitions:
Your God is reality
Your God has a mind.
Your God has super powers.
Your God Judge’s us.
Here are the things we know about the properties of Realty.
It exists.
So, is “Reality” your God? We don’t know : because we can’t tell whether reality has a kind, super powers, or judges us.
This shows how your God is not God at all, just your own weak conception of God that you can’t show exists. I have no idea what this nonsense your currently spouting is, it appears that you’re just protesting that you really believe your God exists, and so if I claim your God doesn’t exist, then we can’t be talking about the same thing.
No, I’m talking about your God, capital G.
He exists only in your mind, and you cannot show he really exists - as you cannot show reality has any of the correct properties. Your championing a conception - not God, which is fallable, logically self refuting, as irrational.
You don’t seem to get this because your irrational brain appears to have tied itself in a knot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I guess we’re right - the adult tax is now removed, and the system doesn’t mandate people live in tents.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Please explain:
So I frequently engage, discuss, and attempt to converse with those that disagree with me.
You berate, insult and tell people who disagree with you to “go f**k yourself”, call them dumb, bigots, etc; normally without any argument or conversation.
Please explains why you feel the first is “intolerant towards those with differing opinions” whilst the latter is not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If realty isn’t God, and is something else - then my mind can exist without God, your God doesn’t exist, and all of the nonsensical clap trap you say is untrue.
As you yourself said: your conception of Reality is not Reality. So just because you claim God is reality - this is your own conception - doesn’t make it true.
Now, as I said, you may define God as “reality” but your God has a mind, and powers, and created heaven, and judges people....
Last time I checked, I can’t tell that reality does or has any of those things directly - so it doesn’t matter
So what you’re doing is wishing your God unto existence.
Reality exists, but as the properties we know reality does not match that of God God - you can’t xlaim your God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Wait: you genuinely thought me asking whether I was this guys God was genuine and serious? Rather than as, say, rhetorical device to point out the incongruity of the question he was asking?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If reality is real, but God isn’t real, I can exist without God, and reality still exists.
Your going around in circles
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You got even dumber.
I wait in eternal optimism for the day you are able to string a logical and coherent argument together instead of launching into insults and vitriol.
Sadly today is not that day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If God didn’t exist. I could have a mind independent of God
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What a stupid thing to even imply to anyone.
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Then why are you asking whether I have a mind - when I am asking you whether your God has a mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Youre not giving me an answer
An answer would be “yes” or “no”.
What you’re doing is answering a question with a nonsensical riddle that makes no sense, isn’t clear and appears completely unrelated.
I’m assuming that you don’t know whether God has a mind; as you have now tried to weasel your way out of answering the question three times now.
Does God have a mind? yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Why are you avoiding the question:
Are you scared? Do you not know? Are you afraid of sounding stupid? If that latter - that ship
has sailed.
Do you think God has a mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I asked you if God has a mind.
Its a simple question. Are you unable to answer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No, nothing you said is actually true, and you offer no argument or evidence to support it.
You repeatedly make lofty and bold assertions about what is true: You false equate your own opinion on what God is, or is not with God. All you have is your own, fallible conception of God that is wholly within your own head.
You yourself have repeatedly said that this is not correct - I’m just using your own argument.
Now, I’m not objecting to God specifically - I am pointing out your logic is nonsensical. You claim God is reality, them use this to say God exists because reality does.
As I have said repeatedly - while reality exists - we can’t tell reality has a mind - so the existence of reality doesn’t show God exists. You may want to actually pay attention to that one.
Fundamentally though: your conception of God refutes itself, because I can take these qualities you claim - apply them through the Razor - and demonstrate that if God was truly as your conception implies - he would have made a better universe. Which I did at the start.
So - you refuted yourself once by railing against conceptions - and conception is all your really have.
Your God refutes itself through the Razor. And finally the logic itself that you use is implicitly faulty.
So you’re wrong in three different ways. The illogical trinity!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Realiy having a mind is relevant.
If reality doesn’t have a mind - it’s not God.
iIf reality has a mind - it is God
So whether your God exists or not - is down to whether Reality has a mind
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Im not turning your God into a conception.
I’m pointing out that all you have is a conception of God - which you are then pretending is the real thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
You need to implement this: (please excuse the c++)
Class Haters : public Object
{
public:
virtual Go( Object* obj )
{
Obj->Fuck();
}
}
void TestUser( Object* user )
{
Hater* hater( dynamic_cast<Hater*>(user) );
if(hater)
{
hater->Go(hater);
}
}
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
[My conception of] The Word has to take flesh, Ramshutu, otherwise [My conception of] God is not with us. Then we can't even talk about [My conception of] God.But we can talk about [My conception of] God, and [My conception of] God is present through [My conception of] His Word and Spirit.
I fixed you last post. You forgot to mention which parts are simply down to your opinion of the conception. As this is the majority of our argument, it is fallible and subject to your own internal bias and faulty logic. You keep telling everyone else this, you should apply it to yourself: otherwise this is just intellectual dishonesty.
Reality exists - but I can’t tell whether reality has a mind: as such we can’t tell that Reality his God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No.
Your conception of God is that it is the ultimate reality - that is your conception. You yourself repeatedly stated that conception of God != God.
Now - reality exists.
Is reality God?
Only according to you conception of Reality - and tie conception of reality != Reality. You yourself said this repeatedly.
Your conception is poor and illogical because your falling afoul of a rudimentary logical error:
God has a mind, and God has super powers.
We know reality exists, but we don’t know it has a mind and super powers.
Knowing reality exists - is not proof that it has a mind; and is thus not proof of your conception of God.
Your own irrational rejections posted earlier refute your own argument here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am not denying God. I am not denying Reality.
I am denying YOUR CONCEPTION of reality and YOUR CONCEPTION of God.
I do not acknowledge your conceptions as valid as they are illogical.
Youve agreed that these are conceptions, you’ve stated yourself that conceptions of Reality != Reality. So why on earth you claim your position is valid whilst it self evidently fails based on your own rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yes: again.
Just because you are admitting you are forced to use a conception of God and a conception of Reality does not mean you’re not falling foul of your own rules.
Your using fallible conceptions, that can have errors and can be wrong: and for which you have claimed are illogical and irrational to rely upon when I make similar conceptions.
Why are you allowed to rely on your fallible conceptions of Reality and God - but no one else is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Like I said, with all the nonsense and gibberish - you basically are trying to convince me that your fallible, human conception of God is true and valid.
You said so yourself:
Your conception of God != God. Your conception of Reality != Reality
You can’t even follow your own rules.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Yes, that’s what I said.
You're using your conception of God to show what is beyond conception.
Your conception of God != God.
You said so yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That’s just your conception of God.
Your conception of God != God.
Your conception of Reality != Reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
A conception of God =/= GodA conception of The Ultimate Reality =/= The Ultimate RealityYou are still trying to fit God into your box, because you think you know what you don't
This must be projection.
What you’re doing is making a conception of God as the ultimate reality. This is not god - you said so yourself
Youre inventing a conception of the ultimate reality and pretending it is the ultimate reality. This is not reality either
The main thing though, is the flawed and ridiculous logic you’re using is backwards. God has a mind, and is reality. reality exists but unless you can show it has a mind, you can’t show that it’s God. So in that respect, given you’re convinced of this faulty argument, you think you know what you don’t.
So you’re literally projecting all the errors you are making onto me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But you’re not talking about the ultimate Reality, you’re talking about god
God has a mind.
We have no reason to believe the ultimate reality has a mind. So you telling us they’re the same is just making things up.
But good going telling us you don’t need logic nd reason. It shows us all which boat you’re sailing on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Nah, you’re just making a bunch of stuff up then claiming you’re correct without any logic or argument.
We know Reality exists.
We don’t know reality has a mind or super powers.
Your God has a mind and super powers.
Therefore we can’t tell that reality is the same thing as your God.
By all means, show me how you can tell Reality has a mind and super powers...
Created: