secularmerlin

If you are defining god as the mindless workings of physical reality as governed by the laws of physics and nothing more than I am not arguing that doesn't exists. Anything else is pure conjecture unsupportable with the evidence available.

For example that reality itself is omniscient or even self aware is a claim that must be demonstrated to me before I can accept it.

I accept the definition of number 2 but I would reject any claim that the number 2 could not ecist without the 2 fairy even if the 2 fairy is defined ad the entity from which the number 2 derives without whom no number 2 is possible.

I'm not rejecting the claim that reality appears to exist I am rejecting the claim that reality is being guided by any awareness, conciousness or animus including its own. At least until such time as these attributes are demonstrated to me, but if you are correct that ultimate reality is unknowable it cannot be demonstrated and I'm still not sure why you believe in something that is undemonstrable.

So what you are saying is you can only prove your case if I believe you ahead of time?

But if it is outside of knowledge how do you assign attributes such as omniscience omnipotence and omnipresence (the logical contradictions these omni attributes imply aside) or even that the particular god concept you have in mind (whatever that happens to be) exists at all? You have explained that you mean whatever actually exists but also that you believe this to be more than just a collection of matter and energy following the laws of physics unguided so if that is all reality is then your god concept would not exist as you propose it.

(Sorry got sidetracked by the implications of the discussion itself. Maybe some other time.)

Then we cannot make any statements about the truth that are not mere conjecture. In other words we cannot know anything about an unknowable thing. (Tautalogical truth, if something fits my current understanding of the definition of the word unknowable then you cannot know anything about it.)

In short why do you believe in something that isn't just unknown but literally cannot be known?

(Can he forfeit the save if he wants? You kniw choose to believe.)

I do understand the analogy but I don't believe it holds up. If god is like a continent that hasn't been discovered then you are talking about a quantative truth that has not been quantified. The problem with this is that while quantative truth that we are unaware of must exist (mathematically speaking) until we quantify it we can only make conjecture about its nature.

Do you understand that? Because it is a pretty crucial point if you expect me to accept your claims.

(Mage hand can hold a torch aloft it weighs less than ten pounds. He can just hold it for Roberts.)

(Now we know and knowing is half the battle.)

(Does the illusion of a torch produce real light?)

Great idea. I'm just gonna put you in charge of that.

@TheDreadPirateRoberts @buddamoose @earth

if we always go right it will be harder to get lost.

I proceed forward turning right at the t junction.

I cannot be certain that it is but that is all it appears to be and so I have no reason to believe that it is anything more. Also of course I was oversimplifying.

I tuck the kitten back in my pouch and feed it the corner of one of my dried meat rations.

I stroke the cat with a gentleness that likely surprises my teammates. 

Ok why do you believe that reality is more than just a bunch of radiation, stars and planets? Or is god just a bunch of stuff with no apperent direction or reasoning capability?

A definition is actually only good if we can both accept it and even then only for the purposes of our discussions. When having a discussion with someone other than myself the two of you might accept different definitions.

Actually I am interested genuinely in your beliefs but you have already told me what you believe in this regard and now I am trying to puzzle out why. When you say god is real becaus god is reality that is what you believe not why. You've now brought up dictionary definitions. Ok so you believe that the dictionary definition is correct. Again that is what you believe not why. If you had claimed that god was a cow or a duck or a giraffe my questions would be similar, why do you believe that.

A long rest also restores you to max hp. At least that's what the link buddamoose provided had to say.

Well you only have 12 of 20 hp. We are all short of our full hp and us spell casters are down one spell slot. My charachter would.just press on (you know Zud's will and all) but I as a player certainly see the potential benefits of another rest.

So are we taking a rest or pressing on?

How have you determined that this is the case?

I don't think most people do choose their religion. If they did you wouldn't expect religion to correlate with geography but it seems to.

If you will accept that a definition is simply the common usage of a word and does not constitute the demonstration of a claim. Ancient Greek phylosephers classified people as flightless birds. It was a part of the definition of a person for them. I will accept Miriam Webster as a good starting point for acceptable definitions if you will accept that definitions can be flawed and inaccurate.

That is a very strong stance are you certain? (Not about impossible things not existing that is tautalogically true I mean about the rest)

Language is arbitrary To a degree yes. Rock could have meant tree. Of course language is useless if we cannot agree on terms and I have no reason to accept that the being you are describing is necessary for things to exist or for facts to be true. 

Can you demonstrate a practical difference between those concepts?

I have no concept of god I don't believe in god(s) we are discussing your concept of god. A concept which you do not seem able to present physical evidence of. The earth orbits the sun. That is true. Is god That? Things that are true? Because that is not a being at all a far as I can tell. That has no apparent intellect or animus. It makes no descisions and does not care about us or our beliefs as far as I can tell. Is god really basically a nonentity?

When we got to this point before you said that no god is not that kind of truth but instead etrnal truth but you were then unable to reference any eternal truth other than god. That is a tautalogical and circular argument.

If you can demonstrate your claim I would have no choice but to accept it but just saying god is truth does not demonstrate that there is a god or that said god is truth. If you really care whether or not I believe you then demonstrate your claim.

At least let me cast resistance on you before you go that way if there is a save involved you have a better chance of you know not dying.

Or it could consume your soul. 

You clearly don't realize that definition are made up. It's true you could make up a word right now and assign it a definition. 

God is literally just a word and we decide what words mean. 

That god is truth is a claim and I have no reason to accept your claim before you have demonstrated it. Truth might just be what is and that may not include god or God or even GOD.

One might be.

You are aware that many fictional beings have definitions?

No god(s) god God or GOD has ever been demonstrated to me.

Your definition is only valid if accepted tautalogically.

(Example: god must be real because he is reality)

All we can really say is that god must exist if he is reality

Do you know whose cat this is? Opening my pouch.

I tuck the kitten in my belt pouch and rejoin snerp and the others.upon seeing the children I say oh you two again.

It seems that mirriam Webster has the same  problem you have, which is that they have included a tautology in their definition. So if god exists as Miriam Webster defines god then you would be correct but god as defined by Miriam Webster has not been demonstrated. The other possibility of course is that no being meeting that description exists.

The truth is the truth because truth is true and no truth could exist without the truth. 

Surely you see how this could be mistaken for a circular argument.

You have included truth tautalogically in your definition so yes if your god exists then there can be no truth without this god. The problem is that you haven't actually demonstrated that this god exists (and I'm not sure how we could) so we don't know if truth can exist without said deity simply by virtue of it being epistemologically beyond us to say if this god exists

I brace my crossbow against the window frame for my best one handed shot and open the window with my other hand.

I cannot be certain. All I said is that quantum physics would seem to suggest that there is no certainty. I do not know that it would be impossible for any entity to have objective certainty about something but it doesn't seem to be the case that any observable entity has achieved such certainty  about anything. I cannot say more than that without committing a black swan fallacy.

So quantum physics would seem to suggest.

(I don't think that thing is a real cat.)