Total posts: 1,732
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The second paragraph is applicable to our conversation. Keep in mind, I'm not talking about differing accounts, but contradictory accounts. (ie, both cannot be true at the same time)
Created:
Posted in:
What do you have from the time period that says otherwise?
You cannot live up to this standard, so it is disingenuous to expect it of me. Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, etc., could not possibly be eyewitness to the supposed martyrdoms since they did not exist on Earth when the apostles were alive. A quick check of your list reveals only Ignatius was as a contemporary and he mentions martyrdoms of only 5 apostles which is not even half, much less all, of the apostles.
As far as the conversation between Mopac and I, church tradition (such as some of what you mentioned above) contradicts itself in regards to the deaths of the apostles. For instance, there are many martyrdom traditions of Matthew. Claims include Matthew being stabbed to death, burned to death, burned and killed by Festus, and killed by beheading. Obviously, someone (many someones) has made something up about the death of Matthew. There is sufficient reason to doubt all the apostles were martyred especially given the lack of verifiable eyewitnesses and indisputable legendary accretion surrounding these individuals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have no good reason to doubt that the apostles were martyred, and every good reason to believe they were.
You mean you have no good reason other than the place from where your claims originate (church tradition) contradicts itself on how they died...because that is quite a good reason for doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You're attempting to sidestep valid reasons for viewing church tradition with skepticism. e.g. Church tradition has apostles dying in different, contradictory ways. You're welcome to think whatever you like about me, but without attempting to address this I think it would be better to conclude your credulity has blinded you rather than I am set against belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is only church tradition that holds this statement to be true, and if we get into specifics, church tradition will have apostles dying in multiple ways. Suffice to say, this tradition is unsubstantiated and dubiously held in high regard by the uninitiated.I will say that every single one of Jesus' apostles was executed or tortured to death in some cruel way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have to say, I agree with the OP and your defense of it. Although, your opponent is correct that *sometimes* a negative can be proven. For instance, 'there are no married bachelors'. The terms married and bachelor conflict and cannot exist in a single entity at the same time, thus a married bachelor is a logical impossibility and does not exist.It's not impossible to prove a negative? Please demonstrate by proving there is no Russell's flying teapot.
I think you should qualify your statement to avoid this irrelevancy.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Well, my faith is not in my understanding, but God, which is certainly above and beyond my understanding.
Ok. So I'm getting that you don't completely understand what you're arguing for. That's fine - that makes sense (unlike your argument). Perhaps you'll keep that in mind when you're about to put on your certainty hat again.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It always amazes me when people pretend to not know what truth or reality means. If you don't believe in truth and reality, there is no amount of explaining on my part that will make things clear to you.
I've told you I accept truth and reality, but I don't conflate this with god as you do. Saying this again after clarification might lead an objective observer to reasonably conclude you're being intentionally malicious towards me. Please do not misrepresent my position again.
You have adopted the identity of the skeptic. I tell you that it takes just as much thought to believe something on hearing as it does to reject something on hearing.
Skepticism is not about rejection rather critical evaluation. For instance, if your claim of the Ultimate Reality were able to stand against criticism, I could accept it. Skepticism keeps me from accepting that which is unsubstantiated, flawed, and/or plain B.S. Your claim is at least two of these.
I am not making a tautology. You are being obtuse
You are not only wrong, but mistaken as well. 🤣🤣
Created:
-->
@Mopac
This is still a tautology, and no new information has been provided by the repetition. I remain in the dark about what this is meant to say.It Is That It Is
To distinguish that which is real in a contingent sense from that which is eternally real.
I don't know that "eternal" is a meaningful descriptor in a literal sense. Without coherent terms, I have no idea if your claims are extraordinary or not because they are unintelligible.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I said whatever The Ultimate Reality is that is The Ultimate Reality.
That doesn't clarify anything. It's like saying whatever a tree is, is a tree. You're talking in circles.
If there is one reality, The Ultimate Reality would be it. If there are many realities, they exist vecause of The Ultimate Reality, and they have no existence apart from it.
I see no reason to accept your ultimate reality is either indistinguishable from reality or can exist without it. Something more substantial than assertion is needed to move beyond this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You're mistaken about the universe, reality, and/or truth being the realm of theology. What you're attempting to do is something akin to conflating "God" with geological strata and then considering theologians experts in geology. It doesn't work like that.
Other than this, I have said all that needs to be said about your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is really hard to teach people who already think they know.
Indeed. I hear it is especially hard to teach when you pretend to have knowledge you lack. ;-p
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The fact that you have a nickname ("God") for your god does not mitigate anything I've said.Firstly, I am talking about God, not god.
Reality is dynamic just as you describe the Ultimate reality. When Trump is no longer in office reality will no longer be "Trump is president". It will change as existence changes.It is a reality that Donald Trump is the president of The United States of America. Before he took office, this was not reality. After he leaves office this will not be reality. The Ultimate Reality always is reality, it isn't time dependent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have not lost me, friend, so much as you've lost yourself. You advocate, at best, for a deistic god with your definition. If you were able to establish its validity you would have done nothing to establish the god of Christianity true anymore than the god(s) of Islam, Hinduism, etc.
Perhaps your definition should reflect the Christian god if that's what you mean by "God".
Created:
Posted in:
Not relevent?You aren't very perceptive are you?
I'll just point out no attempt to show relevance has been made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What does the NT have to do with the god you advocate? Nothing in "Ultimate reality/Truth" suggests a god-concept of any specific religion. The leaps you make are logically unfathomable.The concept absolutely is universal, and there is a reason why one of the major overarching themes of the New Testament is that "The letter kills, but the spirit gives life"
Created:
Posted in:
Unless you're adding "God is Nirvana" to your definition, this is irrelevant to your argument.There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
do not have a unique definition for God, you only say that because you are uneducated in these matters. This God has been taught for thousands of years.
So you say, but I have demonstrated your definition is not near as universal as you believe and you've done nothing more than submit (demonstrably false) bald assertion on this front. Accept facts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Do you realize "Blessed One" in the scripture you've provided refers to the Buddha and not a god?
Created:
Posted in:
If God is the subject of theology, you don't poo poo away theology as being irrelevent to this discussion.Yes, God is universally recognized as being The Ultimate Reality, and this is an understanding that crosses the divide of cultural and religious tradition.
That is demonstrably incorrect: There are many Buddhists which do not believe in a god much less the 'ultimate reality' you advocate. Plus, as already stated, theologians do not agree on a definition of "god". "Universally recognized" is a gross overstatement.
For you to poo poo it away as if you had even a basic level of education regarding the subject is assinine, because that is what we are discussing. If you won't accept the basic premise you are wasting your time. Believe whatever deluded thing you want to about God if it confirms your own silly superstitions concerning the subject.
The subject was the universe and what existed before it. This is theoretical physics (not theology) and to appeal to non-experts (theologians) is a logical fault.
The only atheist argument against God is to redefine what God means. Otherwise, denial or even uncertainty regarding the existence of God is revealed for what it is. Manifest foolishness.
I've not defined (or redefined) "God". On the other hand, you have a fairly unique definition for god. Its hard to see how this accusation applies to me and not yourself.
Since our conversation is apparently not finished, perhaps you'd be so kind as to address my post #27? My questions are sincere and relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong.You don't know what you are talking about. You don't even respect the subject matter.
I take it our conversation is over. Thank you for the time you've invested in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The reason you should accept that The Ultimate Reality is God is because this is how the concept is understood in theology. Should the scholars of geology define the language used by mathematicians? Of course not.
First off, theology does not have a monolithic definition of god. Secondly, I don't recognize theologians as experts in reality, truth, or whatever else you might be defining god as, so, an appeal to their authority here is faulty.
The Ultimate Reality is That which is Ultimately Real. The realest reality. The Truest Reality.
We already have a label for that: reality. I have no problem accepting reality exist. However, calling it "god" doesn't add anything to it and I wonder why we would do this. Let's say we were to accept reality and god were the same thing...then what? Do we just call reality "god" instead of "reality"? What edification does this achieve?
It is true by itself, it is not contingent on anything else to be true. It is eternally true, never not true. It is The Truth itself.
You're asserting reality is not contingent and eternal, but...we don't know anything beyond the beginning of our own universe. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts! Additionally, it makes no sense to call reality 'truth'. Is a tree true? Are clouds false? Reality is not true or false, it just 'what is' and true and/or false are not applicable terms. So, whether conflating god and reality makes sense, you're justifications for doing so fall short.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What does it mean for someone outside ourselves to be a moral authority? If someone else tells you what is and is not moral, then are you practicing morality or simply following directions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What is Ultimate reality (and how is this different than reality) and why should we label this "God"? I see no legitimate reason to accept there is something above reality or that a god (any god) should be conflated with it or reality as it can be observed.Whatever The Ultimate Reality is, that is God
If you don't believe this God, you aren't standing on anything
You've given no reason why believing "this God" provides any sort of basis. This is the disconnect you need to overcome if you really want to have a meaningful (and reasonable) conversation with those who do not share your view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you think you and I are saying the same thing, then you do not understand what I am saying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
1)If no evidence is expected then there can be no evidence for or against.
2)If evidence is reasonably expected then lack of it is evidence against existence.
"God" needs to be defined before we can determined which scenario above is applicable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Don't misunderstand me, Outplayz. I'm not saying I think all claims of the supernatural are negative, but that I have no evidence to think they have merit. If you have evidence of something but can't share it, only one of us has evidence. That is not being close minded, but accepting evidence available to me to inform a coherent conception of reality.
Also, dont be so quick to say I cant understand where you are coming from. We have much in common - just not this! 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Thank you for your insights and input. 😁
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
The problem is every claim is made by persons who have no doubt their claim is true, the claims are not compatible, and we have no way to test the claims for truth. Couple this with the fact that there are many ways the human brain can be decieved (fatigue, drug or alcohol use, seizures, mental illness, lack of oxygen, etc.) and it starts looking very likely that these experiences can be explained in very natural ways.All you need, out of every claim that has ever been said, is one person that is a positive. The implications of just one person witnessing paranormal phenomena is pretty huge.
So, testimony of experiences with god or the supernatural should not be accepted as evidence personal or otherwise, imo. ...present company excluded, of course! 😉😉😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You're still addressing the question incorrectly....you ARE evaluating the evidence (weak or strong
No. Follow the conversation. Outplayz and I are talking about evaluating a claim to determine if it is evidence.
we have more testimonial and documented evidence for spirituality than any one could ever study in a lifetime.
First off, we were talking about god and mythical beings. Spirituality is a different subject and does not mandate a god (eg. Buddhism). Secondly, the conversation has progressed passed testimonial being evidence by default. So, a lot of people attesting to something doesn't mean anything in regards to the validity of that claim. Finally, I have no idea what "documented evidence" you're talking about, but, again, spirituality =/= god or mythical beings so it's irrelevant to this discussion.
the concept of a Creator is not comparable to believing in gnomes
You are under no obligation to reply if you are uninterested, can't follow, or uncomfortable with where the conversation has gone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Ok, but this has not been done for god and that brings us back to the OP. Why should we accept god as real and not the other mythical beings?We invent the hypothesis absent observation and then seek evidence to confirm it or refute it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
How should a claim without evidence be evaluated? And unless the person is known to be a liar or delusional they and their person are irrelevant to the validity of the claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
How can we tell they truly saw a gnome and, by extension, if we should accept their tale as evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I realized that after I saw your second reply. No worries! 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I don't think that that definition is defining God into existence. It is saying that God is X, and now X must be logically demonstrated.
As already mentioned, the definition has unwarranted assumptions built into it. (Eg. Creation) and the premise that what ever caused existence is a god is flawed as well. I won't go into it again. The point is, the definition is flawed before we ever look at evidence. Plus, the process is backward - I'll get into that below.
So, I agree that we're not saying that WIMPs and GIMPs definitely exist.
That's because the evidence is inconclusive. Theorists did not decide wimps and gimps exist and then define the circumstances that confirm it into a definition. This is the problem I have with your definition of god. God is arbitrarily given the originator label so that 'if origin then god' rather than doing our best to understand origins and following the evidence where it leads or acknowledging ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I have replied to your responses as I have seen appropriate. You are under no obligation to reply if you are uninterested, can't follow, or uncomfortable with where the conversation has gone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What you (might) mean is 'if someone has an experience that they believe involves gnomes, would that be evidence of gnomes?'I'd say it was.
I asked this exact question in post #110, and I've come to a different conclusion than you. It is my opinion that this would not be evidence, at least not evidence that others can use. So, maybe it's a personal evidence, but this is meaningless in a discussion with other people as it is indistinguishable from no evidence.
Consider an explorer who comes back from Africa and says he discovered a new species of elephant; ie he 'had en experience of a new species of elephant'.
Sure, but this won't legitimately inform a shared conception of reality until his claims can be verified and validated.
I also think claims of un undiscovered natural beast is quite different than a claim of the supernatural. The claim is bigger and the evidence is still insufficient.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
If someone has an experience with a gnome, is this evidence of gnomes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
The OP does not believe this. The OP questions why existence of god is accepted on a quantity of evidence which is not sufficient to accept the existence of other special beings.[...] my contributions in this thread were designed to show that the possibility of God's existence cannot be as easily disposed of as the OP believes
Created:
Posted in:
In order to have an idea of what God is, you're saying, we must first prove that God exists (such that we have evidence about God).
I'm not saying this. I am objecting to "god" essentially being defined into existence. You suggested a definition which assumes existence is a creation and "god" is the origin. ("Now suppose we define god as the origin of all creation").There are a lot of unverifiable assumptions in that.
Even if we drop the assumption that existence is a creation, there is still an assumption that an origin of existence necessitates a being. I mean, if we're calling the supposed origin of the universe "god", but it turns out to be something completely natural then we're not really talking about "god" as commonly understood. I pointed out an origin to existence does not necessitate a being in an attempt to avoid any equivocation.
As to Wimps and Gimps, I dont believe we are saying they definitely exist. Currently it is thought one of the two have explanatory power in relation to dark matter, but it might be neither are real and a third option is reality (dependent on future observation or maths). This is not analogous to the definition you've provided for god because, as I understand it, physicists are saying if dark matter then possibly X or Y ...tbd, and you are saying existence is created therefore X (origin) and Y (god).
The KCA is based on the observation that all things have a cause, so why shouldn't existence?
For that matter, why shouldn't the thing that caused existence have a cause. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
In some sense we may not be able to genuinely appreciate such an entity as it is, but that does not prevent us from sketching it out. I knew what a lion was before I saw it, just from definitions, but I only truly appreciated its majesty once I saw it.
Since you've already provided the analogy of a lion, let's build on that. We didn't define "lion" and then look for a beast to match our definition. The beast existed first and we called it "lion". As we have had more observations of this beast our definition has been refined. I don't seen how the definition for "god" came to be from observations.
It seems lack of observation is primarily responsible for how this word has been defined. We don't know there to be anything not contingent on material and we don't know there to be anything supernatural, yet the definition for god assumes immaterial and supernatural are meaningful descriptions AND responsible for the natural material world. Colloquially, god is understood to be much more than this (a person with specific cognition and emotionality) again, on no observation.
I'm sympathetic to Spinoza's and Einstein's god, but most people are not thinking of this when they utter the word "god". I accept I should have been more clear on this in the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I'm not too impressed by arguments from definition especially when the definition seems to be arbitrary rather than based on evidence.
Sure, we can define god as the originator of existence, but what evidence validates that definition? By that reasoning, gnomes could be defined in the same way and we are still no closer to establishing they exist. And that is what the OP probes.
Also, I think it should be noted that existence having an origin doesn't demand agency. Assuming an origin, the best we can currently say is we don't know what caused it or that it was supernatural in any way.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Life goes on - I'll be ready in a week. 😉
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Sure it makes a difference when it was written
Unless you want to argue it is unreasonable to expect a perfect being (all knowing, all powerful, etc) to choose a conduit of communication that will stand the test of time, then my point stands: the Bible is not the work of a perfect being.
Beaming a message to humans and leaving it in their safekeeping with no apparent oversight is a completely absurd route for the alleged creator of the universe to rely upon. If you, I, or any competent human, given the same power and knoweldge, would not rely on a multi-millennial game of telephone to convey crucial information to mankind.
Also, I just want to point out that you argued against contradictions, ignorance, and deterioration of the message (all of which are indisputable) and made no mention of the other 6 things that should not exist in the communications of a perfect being. I could concede ignorance and contradiction, the inability to know what the original authors actually wrote (much less what they actually meant) in the Bible and still have plenty of reasons to reject the Bible as the work of a perfect being.
I'd rather not talk passed one another, so I'm going to expect you to address all of my point of stop attempting to use the Bible as any sort of justification for your arguments with me.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Thank you. I think I'll be ready for a debate in a week if you'd like to aim for then.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Sorry, Outplayz, Im on my phone (which I can't see well) and took your message to be from PGA Thank you for you kind words and please disregard the debate discussion!
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Thank you for that. Maybe we could get something lined up in a week or so. I would like to do a bit of research and I think I will be ready then.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
The Bible is not convincing to me in the least. The contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, the blatant tampering by self interested anonymous persons, additions, deletions, etc. In addition to this, the Bible is the claim and cannot be evidence of itself.It was written during ancient times. The language and culture were different.
Given that the Bible is said to be inspired by "God", it makes no difference when or where it was written. A perfect being should be able to communicate in a way that would not deteriorate and become unclear. Regardless of language or culture, there should be no ignorance represented as truth or knowledge. And, finally, there should be no contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, tampering, additions, deletions, etc.
The Bible does not communicate clearly, it does represent ignorance as knowledge, there are contradictions, absurdities, anachronisms, tampering, additions, deletions, etc. Given this, the Bible is not the work of a perfect being regardless of what it claims.
Even if you look at it as a claim, history backs up prophecy.
At best, history agrees with your interpretation of prophecy.
BTW, it looks like DebateArt did not reset the debate. Do you want me to start it over or should we first get our five judges to commit?
Maybe we should postpone it. I recently lost my father and I don't have the focus to do a debate right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think it is a matter of personal experience. No God claims SHOULD be accepted as real, without personal experience, or without convincing evidence for each individual.
Ok, so reasons exclusive to the individual? (ie. there is no objective evidence for god?)
Sometimes people just believe in God due to growing up with it, and being indoctrinated. I think this is true in a good portion of cases, and I think geography proves this (because most people are members of the predominant religion of where they grew up).
Do you think subjective experiences of god can be influenced by upbringing, indoctrination, or culture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
You claim to have logical reasons and evidences for accepting god and not the other mythical creatures, but you didn't share them.
Created: