Total posts: 4,920
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I go by what is accepted as evidence as in how we derive scientific fact not your lack of evidence under what I consider evidence.You don't understand the evidence.
You seem to think it is possible for there to be reality if nothing is ultimately real. If there is no ultimate reality, nothing is real. Your experience soundly disproves this, as there is clearly some form of reality.
This is under your definition that God is ultimate reality. Not what I am going by. I have the position that God you have yet to prove is different from reality.
The only possible conclusion is that The Ultimate Reality exists, and that is what is meant by God.
An unsubstantial conclusion while also not agreeing upon the definitions I laid out.
Created:
Posted in:
No. You can not only understand what you yourself have wrote , you cannot keep up with what you wrote and the responses to it.
Let me try to explain the grievance I have with what you said:
What do you mean by I?I that "god " is not good. as per the assumption that he is good.FFS can you not read your own fkn writing.
Why do you have a full stop between good and as?
Why can't you simply make sure your sentences make sense before you post it or you know edit it afterwards?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I that "god " is not good. as per the assumption that he is good.FFS can you not read your own fkn writing.
It is not my fault I am not clearly understanding what you are saying. Even here what are you even saying?
"I that "god is not that good. as per the assumption that he is good."
Then you insult me as if I'm the problem when you are the one who doesn't clearly state what you mean.
Do you want to try saying this again or what?
Created:
Posted in:
Question just one of his contentions and he accuses you of questioning any and all of the others and abandons the claim you have contested.He is completely dishonest.
I figured which is why I want him to prove God exists yet he is not doing that. I thought a person who believes in God surely would have proof of its existence. It is certainly a lot to think for someone to have a lifetime commitment to something based on a guess. In theory yeah I think that would happen but in the real world no people just believe God exists without proof. He thinks simply saying claims or saying how I am wrong is proof but it isn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you say there is no ultimate reality, you are saying there is no truth. Obviously, this makes you a liar.
Instead of doing what I said which is provide evidence for your side. You instead talk about my supposed time. Isn't it funny how you pivot from what I told you to do?
Atheism is certainly the embrace of arbitrariness. Nihilist dipshittery.
Useless information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am not denying anything. You simply don't understand what evidence is. Do you also have a different definition evidence as well?Your denial of evidence does not negate evidence.
Existence itself is the evidence for God. To say there is no ultimate reality is an untenable position. It is patently foolish.
Instead of giving me evidence you instead say. It is foolish to say otherwise.
Of course you can't tell me that God doesn't exist. This is obviously a fallacy.
What fallacy?
Remember I am not going by your definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah that is my position from theists insufficient argument and what I can't fill in for their bad arguments.Yes. I know. You have also said it is an assumption that god is good.
I have suggested that the book of the theist itself proves them to be wrong when I stated all the above.
Wrong in what sense? If you trying to disprove Mopac with his circular logic it is doubtful you can tell him he is wrong. As of yet he has yet to give me evidence instead gave me yet another paragraph. Either he commits a special pleading fallacy or doesn't know what evidence is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is not evidence. Do you understand that? I did ask for it remember.If there is no ultimate reality, that means nothing is real. Clearly you are having an experience, which soundly proves there is some form of existence(reality). The position that there is no ultimate reality or God is self defeating and untenable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I said it is an assumption since theists believe God exist. If they still want to say it is true without proving it then it is a lie.
Created:
-->
@DebateArt.com
I am afraid it's not gonna arrive any time soon, unless you guys are designers and willing to design the whole thing because otherwise design is the hardest thing for me ( that's why the site is so ugly )
No I am not about the layout or something. Simply a color palette. Design stuff will remove the simplicity of the site. Colors I think or at least I hope so is easy to add.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are wanting me to scientifically prove that when wr use the word God, we are referring to The Ultimate Reality?
No I want you to prove God exists. You think God and ultimate reality are the same so there is no point of me asking that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Can you add a dark-theme?
The one on YouTube if you have an account.
Created:
No because I said so.
There is your reason. Didn't imply it to be a good one.
Serious reason. Ruin the experience that this site has. Dislike the orange wish I was able to change the color pallet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Observable you know science.What do you consider evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
God is The Ultimate Reality or Supreme Being.Are you going to address this or are you going to avoid the subject and talk trash?
Thank you for telling me the definition. Doesn't make it true. Are you going to support your claims?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Guess you must have had a brain freeze. Sorry making you think so hard was difficult for you.No, I am speaking one thing at a time as an adaption to your John Forbes Nashing my posts in the hopes we can go through this slowly and thoroughly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Yessss.Yeah, I guess that's easy enough
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Did I hit a brick wall with what you are able to say?Gos is The Ultimate Reality or Supreme Being.
Oh well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I engaged throughly with what you said. You as can clearly been seen have not shown me the same courtesy. I have past responses to support that I quoted your responses in context while also responding to most of what you said. You on the other hand decide to simply dismiss my questions and do what you always do which is default to very simple arguments not actually adding depth or realizing we are using different definitions.You don't know what you are talking about. Since you are incapable of responding to me without breaking up my posts, you will now get twitter responses.
I don't know what you mean by twitter responses but if it is more bite-sized than what you did before. I doubt you can even type anything for your responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You are accusingg me of arguing deceitfully, so I am not interested in what you have to say.
I didn't say deceitful. I simply said you change definitions to suit your agenda, engage in circular logic while on top of that can't substantiate the very thing you believe in.
MY RELIGION IS OLDER THAN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.
If this means you are right then it is an appeal to tradition. Don't know how many times I need to explain how an appeal to tradition so I will simply give a link: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/44/Appeal-to-Tradition
You are arguing semantics. I am telling you what we believe. Your disputing over words does not interest me.
Saying I am arguing semantics doesn't mean I am wrong or right. Since you have given me very few words to work I do see my problem is semantic-al but the arguments boil down to semantics even when you simply are discussing things. You are not discussing generalities you were arguing specifics like God is truth. That is not general it is specific.
My problems with words is what you are doing wrong. Saying God is good in your sense isn't what I mean by it. I can say God is a prick and use your definitions and we wouldn't go anywhere but I have given my definitions and you still refuse to actually rebut my claims. Who is the one who is supposed to be telling who is wrong again? I did make this forum topic by the way.
Really though, people who argue deceitfully have to break posts up into chunks so they can remove what is said from proper context.
Where did break the context? I take everything you said and address it. You complaint holds nothing because if I did remove the context of something you would be able to show an example yet I don't see one.
If this is not a deceitful way to argue, it is a sign of immaturity, a sign of not being able to listen to what someone is saying before trying to rebut them.
Are you supposed to say how God is good is not assumption by my definitions or are you here to tell me your very simple circular logic?
This is a fruitless argument, because Omar is just wildly throwing shit against the wall instead of trying to understand what he is arguing against.
If you mean wildly as carefully showing you how you are wrong and throwing shit as in something landing and you can't rebut it then yes you are correct. The topic post was about I said not you. So why are you make this topic about yourself?
Created:
Posted in:
The Truth is God.Merriam webster says "Supreme or ultimate reality"Oxford says "Supreme Being"
You basically said truth is God yet you give the definition that states supreme ultimate reality. Give me the definition of truth from a dictionary.
Cambridge is the better dictionary so do use it or you know use a worse definition.
Merriam has multiple definitions so you are picking what suits you the best.
Oxford is better but also has multiple definitions. You are just picking what fits into your agenda.
Where is your definition of good as well?
And I will repeat, my religion is older than your language. You cannot change what we mean by changing the meanings of words. We know what we are saying, because we have 2000 years worth of writings that make clear what we are saying. Really, writing that goes back a thousand yesrs earlier still!
Appeal to tradition. Used the length of an idea to say it is correct which is a fallacy. An actual fallacy not something you make up. If you actually accept the length of your idea being correct then flat Earth is also correct because of how much longer people thought it was true.
So your argument is invalid. It is invalid because you are trying to apply a false definition to what we mean.
You keep saying we but all I see is you talking about what you believe. I don't know who else you are talking for but they are irrelevant to the conversation. It isn't a false definition and you yet to show that instead of saying it doesn't confine with my worldview. Yet again showing you don't operate on what is you operate on what you want things to be. Instead of accepting what reality is you decide to change reality to suit yourself.
What that means to you is that good is an arbitrary thing, and you can say, "To say God is good is an assumption, because I don't like reality the way it is."
Good is based on what I like. This isn't arbitrary because it is based on my environment and I choose from things that I like to personally associate with. Let me change your straw-man to my actual position "God is good is an assumption because you haven't shown it otherwise and I have clearly shown it to be the case".
Well, if you don't accept God as the standard for good, what you call good is in fact EVIL. There is nothing good about embracing delusion, and if you think good is whatever you arbitrarily say is good because of some subjective whim, you are certainly in delusion.
A personal attack? Okay. Isn't an argument against God is good is an assumption. I am not going to change the forum topic I made to bend it down to your will. You have yet to show how under my definition of good and God that God is good isn't an assumption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I understand your argument. You are changing definitions in order to suit your agenda. I understand it clearly. Good is a subjective term but you have changed it to God's will.You are not arguing as one who is trying to understand. Youu are arguing as someone who is trying to refute.
I don't respect your argument.
You don't need to respect it in order to understand it.
By the way, you aren't refuting anything. You are wrong.
Not my fault you can't argue against the very thing I have clearly laid out you are doing.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The graph title was words not letters. The graph was also easy to read simply showing the rich have their wages increasing whereas everyone barely even nudge. So I don't see what problem he has.Alec's strong suit is not arithmetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
It is your burden to provide this not mine.If you want evidence to back up my claims, you can fact check them to see if I am right. For example, if you don't know if the abortion rates are falling, you can look up abortion rates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You used an appeal to tradition then you denied it.I certainly am going to appeal to our holy tradition because this topic is about my religion.
If you adjust your attitude and maybe also show some respect to the subject matter, I will gladly pick up where we left off.
So when I actually dissect your point of view and realize you are simply using different definition to get to your means now you want me to not do that? I am not going to call you out until you use the agreed upon definition not the one you made up.
Do you want to know what we believe or are you here simply to argue? I do not respect your argument.
No I am here to understand. I am showing the flaws of your stance yet you don't change it. So my understanding is that you simply change definitions in order to suit your agenda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Do you check if the quotes are Iconic or not?
Here is another one to check or add:
"My religion is older than your language." -Mopac
Another one:
"Kant was an unenlightened boob." -Mopac
Another one:
"I go to at least 3 different churches a week, a lot of times 4.
I get around a lot." -Mopac
Another one:
"and for you to proffer otherwise to the direct inspired words of Jesus on this topic, IS BLASPHEME and you will pay for your insolence upon Judgment Day, praise Jesus' revenge!
Kids, nothing but snot nosed kids roam this forum on DebateArt! :(" -BrotherDThomas
I can find more but I will leave it at that.
Can you categorize it?
This can be based on DA users or politics, Religion etc.
Use my links I gave here because it goes directly to the quote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Appeal to tradition? If this isn't an argument that you are using for you being right then it was a waste of time.My religion is older than your language.
That definition you are using is for "god", not "God". It is not accurate to what we believe.
Why are you appealing to people who aren't in this discussion? I used one of the best dictionary sites for the definition yet you say no we don't subscribe to it. Do you have a different definition? Do also include a link to your source not your own definition.
The definition you are using for good is, as I said, an arbitrary thing as what is "satisfactory, enjoyable, pleasant, or interesting" are all subjective judgement calls.
Good is subjective. Is that too hard for you to grasp? What I find enjoyable is not what you find enjoyable. It is that simple.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Your source shows their wages going up by 10% over 50 years. They can get better, more productive jobs if they want higher wages.
Look at the second to last graph titled "Wage increases in the U.S. rise to the top earners". Come back to me when you have seen it.
Where in anywhere of the source I brought up did they mention "their wages going up by 10% over 50 years"?
I am not spending time debunking what you said later on until you give more detail.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
You forgot about this:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Same.Yes that sounds accurate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If you don't believe in God, good to you is an arbitrary thing to begin with, so I would argue that your reasoning is foundationally perverse.
How is my good arbitrary? Is it under your definition? I don't accept it if you are using it.
What do you say good is? Obviously you have a different understanding of the concept, which is why you are asking for evidence.
Why ask me this? I am not the one changing definitions in order to suit an agenda. I work with what is not bend reality to conform my ideas. You say God is ultimate reality yet you show no proof. You say God is good while not conforming to the actual definition instead change it because you feel like it.
But let it be noted at this point we are not talking about the OP anymore, because the OP has been thoroughly addressed. We are simply examining your misunderstanding.
Let it be noted you have yet to make God is good distant from an assumption. All you did was change definitions in order to bend it to your wants.
If you wanted my definition of God and good here it is:
God: a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or something that represents this spirit or being
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
What are for then? A mixed economy?There should not be blind ideological adherence to one system or another, but a choice between one or the other with a decision guided by the facts and circumstances.
It would have the free market plus socialist policies. You can decide the slant in whichever direction you want.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Then how is it good? Why aren't you calling it God's will?We define good by God.
Apodictic truth.
No it isn't. Self-evident is not evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
So you want socialism or communism?
I know capitalism is bad but I doubt the progress in technology will be similar under socialism or communism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The logical conclusion of your approach is "Prove to me that it is true that there is truth!"
No it isn't. It is prove to me what you are saying is truth.
You consistently engage in circular logic and my questions have been clear on what I wanted out of you yet still you are not able to answer simple questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Orthodox Christian theology is expressed in apodictic truths.What that means is that these are not philosophical conclusions, but that which is self evident.
I don't accept self-evident for anything so I require evidence. Have any?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Because The Ultimate Reality is God, and good is that which is true and right.
How is God ultimate reality? This time don't use the word good (any other adjective), true, right, ultimate reality or God. I'll see if that works.
This is part of what I mean by you being educated in such a way as to undermine Christianity. It is not that I am indoctrinated. It is really quite the opposite. The people who worked out your education despise Christianity, so they are indoctrinating the population with newspeak specifically designed to make what we believe unintelligible.
Evidence of non-Biblical indoctrination?
The example I point out the most is God, which actually means "The Ultimate reality". How many atheists accept this as being what the word means? Obviously if they knew this and accepted this, they wouldn't be atheists.
I'll keep that in mind that ultimate reality and God are the same meaning to you.
Another example here is "good". To most people, good is what seems nice, beneficial, or whatever aligns with some arbitrary sense of aesthetics. That is not how we understand good. Even Socrates was closer than those today when he said 'There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.'.
How is "those today" wrong?
The point is that Truth is what determines good. Without Truth, there is no good. That being the case, it follows quite naturally that being good is about abiding in The Truth.
How is God truth? Can't use good or anything other adjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If Christianity wasn't undermine-able by simply asking questions then you would be able to answer what I said. So you aren't going to answer my questions on top of that you are pretty much saying you have to be indoctrinated into Christianity in order to understand what is "good" and "truth".Your education was specifically engineered to undermine Christianity.
That being the case, you will not understand me unless you show me some charity. Please grant me this patience.
I ask you questions and you beg me to not ask questions I guess? In order for me to understand you I need to ask questions.
God is what makes something good.
How?
God is good, and so what is good to us is abiding in God.
I understand after the comma but now how God is actually good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Gays are becoming more conservative because of the left stance on Islam, at least I hope that.
The last I asked you this you didn't have actual proof so I will ask you again. Evidence the left "stance on Islam"?
Evidence Gays are becoming more conservative?
Abortion rates are falling, so abortion is becoming less of a threat. The left is unwilling to compromise on abortion, even though most claim they are willing to compromise in general.
Evidence of abortion rates falling?
Evidence of "The left" "unwilling to compromise on abortion"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How?The Truth is good.
There can be nothing good without God.
Why?
God is not contingent on anything, so to say that God requires there to be any thing would be a fallacy.
What fallacy is it and how do you know what God is?
How do we understand morality? To love God with an undefiled intellect.
How did you get loving God from principles of right and wrong behavior?
Everything else is contingent on what I had a problem with here so I am not going to respond it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I really hope I've been posting long enough for people to know that I think gods are purely imaginary. If it seemed was I talking of how the gods are, I am really talking about how they are imagined to be.
I am not a regular on the Religion forum or haven't seen enough of you.
The only adjective I think really applies to gods is 'non-existent', but that seemed a boring and obvious thing to say.
Okay.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It is not an assumption that God is good, there is no good without God. Of course God is good.
Can you prove God requires there to be good?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Why @ me with this?Better than dead, plus fix the adoption system
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
An ancient Hebrew might disagree, although he would be careful to do so in a way that did risk offending yhwh!
Guessing a joke.
The relatiuonship between ANE tribes and their gods was that those 'positive adjectives' applied as long as the god was pleased, but if they were displeased those gods turned extremely negative!
A relationship is proof of a relationship. Not proof what was in the relationship is true.
What yhwh demanded most was obedience and what made him angry was worshipping any of the other gods. Then the adjectives 'jealous', 'vengeful', 'wrathful' would apply!Other religionsare explicily dualistic,, with one god having 'postive' attributes and the other god the negative ones. Such dulaism seems natural to human minds, and it appears in folk-Christianity as the enmity between God and Satan.
I am guessing you are not disagreeing with me?
Created: