Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Dr.Franklin
its basic bible stuff, not debate worthyAre you suggesting that "YHWH"s motives are unquestionable or unknowable?nope
Yeah Dr.franklin hasn't actually said anything of substance yet 3RU7AL.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Lemming
It's not that complicated.How would you act if you were king?How would you act if you were like superman (impervious to human punishment)?How would you act with no established rules or authority?
The unfortunately truth is that I would probably act in my own self interest first, in the interest of my friends and family next and with at least as much capricious disregard for the needs of others as I do now (probably more). Anything I do now just because I can get away with it I would likely do as a matter of course.
McJagger doesn't have to say please and he isn't even a king or president to say nothing of a kryptonian.
Indeed are any of us really better than McJagger.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Without validation it is indistinguishable from invalid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
its basic bible stuff, not debate worthy
If you cannot be bothered to back up your claim then I will have no choice but to dismiss your argument as invalid.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I'm not sure if I would categorize it as eugenics but it certainly didn't end up doing China any favors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
its simple theology
Then it should be easy to explain. Don't assume your conclusion demonstrate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
(IF) Yahweh is incapable of simply forgiving humans for the serious crime of being human (THEN) he is not omnipotent.
(THEREFORE)
(IF) the Yahweh is omnipotent (THAN) it was a possible to forgive humans without a sacrifice
(THEREFORE)
(IF) your if statement was false at the time before Jesus (THEN) the Yahweh was not omnipotent before the time of jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
your if statement was false at the time before Jesus
Ok why?
Or in other words please show this with a demonstrable or logically necessary counterfactual.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Pollution, food shortages/distribution problems, unemployment, poverty.Couldn't a decrease in population make it a lot easier to solve these problems?For instance, the amount of farmland it takes to maintain livestock is much larger than the area it would take to feed the human race directly. However, this would put millions of people out of a job where there is already too many unemployed. If we had less people, then we could feed the population without putting people out of jobs.
Then perhaps the problem is expecting/requiring people to be employed in order to "earn" a living rather than the resources necessary to live being a given. Indeed the united states of America throws away enough food to feed the entire world to say nothing of over eating. Perhaps the problem isn't with "over population" but with distribution.
In any case if you are unwilling to volunteer to be the first one eliminated I seriously doubt your motives as altruistic. No one who suggests eugenics pictures their in group being part of the culling. That's how you know you can't trust them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
(IF) it was a possible for the Yahweh's to forgive humans without requiring a sacrifice (THEN) the Yahweh could have forgiven humans without a sacrifice.
(THEREFORE)
THE SACRIFICE WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
If you disagree then please point put the specific flaw in my logic and or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
...and I agree to serve your prison sentence...Yeah, people could just pay others to serve their prison terms.This seems to be missing the point.
Happy to hear a better example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Thanks....Though I was aware of the basics.I was really making the point, that in order for something to go bang, then there must be something to go bang. ( Not a direct reference to big bang theory).What fuels a creation event?And more importantly, who or what provides the fuel.Though if something provides the fuel, then what provides the provider....Same old insurmountable conundrum.
If you are looking to follow the rabbit hole further than human epistemology will go I'm perfectly comfortable if not entirely satisfied with the answer I don't know when it is the intellectually honest answer.
Created:
Posted in:
Christ and His righteousness, His sacrifice
Yeah let's talk about that shall we? Is it not by definition unjust to punish someone for the crimes of another? If you hit someone with your car while drunk driving and I agree to serve your prison sentence should you be absolved of all wrongdoing? Maybe given your driver's license back? Would that be moral? Do you think it would satisfy the family of the deceased or the community at large?
Also what exactly is an omnipotent immortal being sacrificing by having (arguably) a pretty bad weekend followed by going back to being an omnipotent immortal being? He didn't lose anything but it did prove that his love is conditional and that my mother loves me more (whenever she needed to forgive me for something she just forgave me. She didn't have to sacrifice anything/one) than the Yahweh loves humanity (according to the source material).
Really this seems more like performance art than noble sacrifice.
Or you could say.
(IF) Yahweh is incapable of simply forgiving humans for the serious crime of being human (THEN) he is not omnipotent.
(THEREFORE)
(IF) the Yahweh is omnipotent (THAN) it was a possible to forgive humans without a sacrifice
(AND)
(IF) it was a possible for the Yahweh's to forgive humans without requiring a sacrifice (THEN) the Yahweh could have forgiven humans without a sacrifice.
(THEREFORE)
THE SACRIFICE WAS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.
If you disagree then please point put the specific flaw in my logic and or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.
Created:
Do parents have any responsibility to their children?
Not after you put them into the lost and found.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
provided this God exists.
Thank you for this. The most reasonable thing I think I've ever seen you write. Maybe there is hope for you yet.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
God understands there are some things I must do to live
This is an interesting tidbit too. If he can make exceptions based on the situation isn't that suddenly a subjective standard?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Christ and His righteousness, His sacrifice
Yeah let's talk about that shall we? Is it not by definition unjust to punish someone for the crimes of another? If you hit someone with your car while drunk driving and I agree to serve your prison sentence should you be absolved of all wrongdoing? Maybe given your driver's license back? Would that be moral? Do you think it would satisfy the family of the deceased or the community at large?
Also what exactly is an omnipotent immortal being sacrificing by having (arguably) a pretty bad weekend followed by going back to being an omnipotent immortal being? He didn't lose anything but it did prove that his love is conditional and that my mother loves me more (whenever she needed to forgive me for something she just forgave me. She didn't have to sacrifice anything/one) than the Yahweh loves humanity (according to the source material).
Really this seems more like performance art than noble sacrifice.
Or you could say.
(IF) Yahweh is incapable of simply forgiving humans for the serious crime of being human (THEN) he is not omnipotent.
(THEREFORE)
(IF) the Yahweh is omnipotent (THAN) it was a possible to forgive humans without a sacrifice
(AND)
(IF) it was a possible for the Yahweh's to forgie humans without requiring a sacrifice (THEN) the Yahweh could have forgiven humans without a sacrifice.
(THEREFORE)
THE SACRIFICE WAS COMPLEYELY UNNECESSARY.
If you disagree then please point put the specific flaw in my logic and or offer a (demonstrable or logically necessary) counterfactual.
(I was going to talk about the other points you made. I feel like some of it was interesting but I deleted all of the rest in favor of talking about this point first. You really do have a gift for the old gish gallop. It's a real gift and if left unchecked a great way to shut a conversation down.)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
-->@3RU7AL
I mean killing innocent people. Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? If so, would you object if you're next? You see, in practice you can say it is okay but you can't live by such standards. They do not pass the livable test. I can choose to eat or not eat sugar (my preference) at my own peril, but should I also be allowed to kill innocent people if that was my preference? The first choice involves my own person, the other someone else. Is it okay to treat others any way I want to treat them?
Wow seems like you have found a perfectly reasonable standard for determining the moral correctness of an action which requires no god(s) and no dogma.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEIST =/= HUMANISTATHEIST =/= NATURALISTATHEIST =/= CREED
I would add
SOME GOD(S) =/= AN EXPLANATION
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The core of a star is an intense environment. The pressures are enormous, and the temperatures can be greater than 15 million Kelvin. But this is the kind of conditions you need for nuclear fusion to take place. Once these conditions are reached in the core of a star, nuclear fusion converts hydrogen atoms into helium atoms through a multi-stage process.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If this is more than a thought experiment then you have gotten the cart well forward of the horse as a creator would have to be demonstrated before we could even consider what responsibilities it might have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Islam on the other hand, (...) believes in reincarnation
Citation needed. I do not think you are correct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
The statement of logic is - "There are no absolutes". Or "there is one absolute". Both are statements of a certain logic - but both are self-contradictory. Both prove logically that absolutes must exist. It does not tell us which absolutes exist or even how we can find them. And to be honest it does not really matter that they don't. What matters is that it implies logically that absolute truth and principles and laws exist.
What do you make of this statement?
Whether or not absolutes exist human beings may be incapable of recognizing them from their subjective prospective.
How about this one?
(IF) we cannot recognize any absolute (THEN) it is functionally identical from our perspective to there being none.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth.
According to many proponents of the concept of nirvana
Nirvana = truth
Just as according many proponents of the Yahweh
Yahweh's word = truth
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is a religion based on the notion of polytheism - many gods - many rights and wrongs
Multiple gods =/= multiple moral standards
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ahhh, star dust? but do you know why star dust exists?
Nuclear fusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
This John bloke found a way to make a buck or two.He would of been ever so happy the day when Pepole started calling him " John the Baptist "OrrrrrrrrrrDid he give himself that title. ? ( in real life )The answer to this will give you the mind set of JOHN THE BAPTIST, / formaly John the walk a rounderOr John the farmer. Or That Bastard john.Picture him once saying. Just all me John will be fine.
Pope on a Rope! Wash with it and go straight to heaven!
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is strange to me how easy it is for opinion to be mistaken for observation.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
We can only begin our epistemological exploration right here, within ourselves.We gather data, check it for logical coherence and efficacy.We (as individuals) are the origin, our individual curiosity is ground zero.We expand our maps of data toward an unknown horizon.These layers of detail all radiate outward with our individual selves at the center.It is illogical to presuppose some hypothetical (unobserved) "starting point" (that is not "you").You can't map what you can't detect.
More than well stated. The poetry of carefully observed epistomology.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
How exactly does the existence of some god(s) solve the problem (if it is a problem) of opinion based morals? And even if it did how do we determine some god(s) morals? And if the morals of the god(s) in question are abhorrent isn't it better to be immoral than to support a moral standard (even an "objective" one) that we are in fundamental disagreement with?
Thought experiment time!
If your preferred god came to you in a dream and told you to murder your child would it be better to do the "moral" thing or to spare your child and not follow this beings horrible commands? What if your preferred god sent an angel to led you to a gay bar and delivered a prophesy and a commandment that you were to engage in homosexuality with the patrons? Would you be of the opinion that he was leading you to behave morally since he is the final objective arbiter of morality? Would you be of the opinion that he was merely testing you to see if you would refuse to do either (or both) of the things I just mentioned on the grounds that you are of the opinion that these are immoral actions? Wouldn't your forming an opinion about how to follow/interpret these commands put us right back to square one of having to rely on our own opinions of right and wrong even though there is an "objective" moral standard?
I understand that you are of the opinion that your preferred god is unlikely to make such commands but the bible does (by some interpretations) command the death penalty for many transgressions and (presumably) you do not think that all homosexuals all divorced women and all wall mart greeters who are scheduled to work on sunday should be executed so you already interpret the Yahweh's commands based on your own subjective moral intuition.
What is my takeaway supposed to be as an atheist given that you are still reliant on your opinion to guide you even with the objective moral standard you claim to have access to? What is my takeaway when various groups of Christians disagree fundamentally about what is and is not against the will of god including whether or not belonging to some of denominations of christianity is against the will of god?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But to be more clear, whatever error the doctor was in is not relevant to the issue of political pressure, and it's obvious compromise.
I'm not sure what the "obvious compromise" is the real issue is not so much any error or even this one scientist's opinion or racism but rather the possibility that some racist(s) might take these flawed conclusions and use them to justify some unjust prejudice. Beliefs inform actions.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Well we are not going to accomplish anything so long as you feel no need to substantiate your claims and more especially if you don't even understand why you would be expected to. I wish you good luck finding an interlocutor more on your own level.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Athias
The claim that "some things" may "exist" "undiscovered" DOES NOT CONTRADICT the fact that ANY claim of "existence" must be either empirically verifiable (demonstrable) or logically necessary.Nice try. But that wasn't secularmerlin's argument.
Perhaps not but this is more or less what I was getting at.
Created:
-->
@Athias
How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?One is synonymous with placing one's "faith." The other is accepting its truth.
Since it is this second I meant I will take this as a yes. At least you are consistent in accepting unsubstantiated claims. Fascinating. Do you equally accept unsubstantiated claims that have not been made like a god that has not been proposed but could be? Or those that are made ironically but also cannot be disproved like the flying spaghetti monster?
Created:
-->
@Athias
"Effective" in what?
Separating fact from fiction most particularly in a way that improves human quality of life which I have vested interest in as a human. If the scientific method could be shown ineffective in this regard or a more reliable method were to present itself I would have no choice but to adjust my beliefs accordingly. This does not seem likely to me based on reasonable expectations based on past experience.
Why must existence be tested for?
It only needs tested for if you want anyone to take you seriously. Otherwise your claim can and should be dismissed out of hand. If you don't care about your arguments being taken seriously by all means disregard.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Then you're applying circular reasoning because when asked, you stated you have confidence in the scientific method.
Yes after observing that it is an effective method. That us why I have confidence in it and not in faith based beliefs which cannot be demonstrated.
Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?Do I believe in them? No. Do I believe they exist? Yes.
How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?
It's not a bald assertion. My statement concerns a single, subjective observer: I. My statements are true by virtue of my stating them. They're not falsifiable.
When you baldly state something without some demonstration that is by definition a bald assertion. You cannot demonstrate your perceptions to anyone but yourself and peoples perception and senses are testable observably unreliable.
Created:
I just stated that I perceive, identify, and observe God.
This is called a bald assertion. It is a logical fallacy not a demonstration of reality.
Created:
-->
@Athias
You mean like the confidence that precedes your acceptance of the scientific method? Why does it have to be "more"?
No. My confidence does not precede the method the method showing its efficacy precedes my confidence. My confidence is contingent.
I've never been unwilling. All gods exist.
Well they all certainly have been equally demonstrated. Do you also believe in big foot, the lochness monster, alien abduction and fairy dust?
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Sooooooooooo.Is it definitely one or the other sec.God either, ( exists ) orrrrrrrrrr ( does not exist )?
Tautologically yes.
Created:
I'm aware of God; I identify God (obviously through his name); I've observed God. There: I've demonstrated a perception of God.
Unless you can demonstrate some god(s) I have no reason to believe that you percieve, observe, identify and are aware of more than your own internalized feelings about the concept of some god(s). Unless of course you are willing to grant the existence of every god ever believed in by any human.
Created:
-->
@Athias
"Our" perspective? I've made no such claims. Nonexistence is incoherent. In order to perceive the nonexistent, it must consist of no perceptible information on itself. How would one, for example, know something does not exist if it does not exist? If one is able to identify the nonexistent, much less identify it as "not existing," then the nonexistent provides perceivable information rendering it existent.
This more or less squarely misses the point. Though I don't necessarily disagree with any of the above a thing which doesn't exist produces an equal amount of evidence as a thing which does exist but which we cannot demonstrate to exist.
There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption,The two clauses between "but" contradict.
No they do not please see above for an explanation of why.
That is not an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance presumes the substantiation of a proposition based solely on the inability to prove its inverse.
You mean like claiming something exists which you cannot demonstrate simply because it cannot be disproved?
On what rubric do you base your standard of "accuracy"?
Independent and repeatable (preferably peer reviewed) scientific demonstration of the proposition in question. Depending on the extraordinary nature of the claim of course. Even then it is not necessarily accurate but only as accurate as human beings are capable.
why does existence need to be tested for?
Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective. Either we can test for the presence of a thing or we cannot. If we cannot then it necessarily either exists but we cannot demonstrate its existence or it does not exist. Since we cannot know which of the two is true then it is functionally identical to my perspective. If we cannot test for or detect something we should not maintain a belief in said thing.
Because your experience, as is mine, is inextricably subjective.
That is why existence needs to be tested for.
Concepts as I have already explained are sufficiently explained by physical means.You've asserted; you've not substantiated.
That is the consensus of neurologists. It is a sufficient explanation and it is observable and testable in reality. There is observably a measurable physical correlation. If you wish to claim some extra component it is you who must demonstrate your claim.
Have you seen/observed your own brain? How would you rationalize what you see without concept? What would you see without concept?
Seeing is irrelevant to proving the existance of a proposition. Our eyes can be deceived. I have had a CAT scan and I can inform you with a high degree of confidence that my brain is in my head.
Human beings may not be capable of one hundred percent certainty on nearly any point.Making such a relation necessitates a grasp of 100 percent which is contradicted by the statement that one is not capable of 100% certainty.
Yes. I will just have to settle for a high degree of confidence in the issue given my apparent inability to have objective certainty on any given issue except that I am experiencing something.
I am only certain of one thing for example beyond the shadow of a doubt. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be completely illusory.In other words, "perception" is reality.
Just the opposite. Even "reality" may not exist. I accept our shared reality as a convenience only and only because it is the only "reality" that I can percieve.
In other words, you "believe" in the application of the scientific method. And if your belief precedes the scientific method, then you are making my point that the immaterial informs the material.
It would be far more accurate to say that I have confidence in the efficacy of the scientific method in separating fact from fiction only because of the physical effects on our world and our standard of life. Also a method, or set of behaviors, is an existent part of the physical world. The scientific method is not immaterial it is physical and the proof of its efficacy precedes my belief. So at most you have an immaterial thing (although I disagree that a belief is immaterial but instead a physical brain state) as an emergent quality of a physical reality (that science improves our lives by helping us understand our reality).
The only true wisdom lies in the understanding that we know nothing.Wisdom lies in understanding that we know everything. Because everything is not objective; it's without fail subjective.
This seems like a non sequitur to me. I am uncertain how you have determined that there is nothing that is objective or why that would lead to the ability to know everything let alone the necessity.
That's context; not definition. If you need help understanding the context in which I apply these definitions, I take no issue indulging you.
If you believe it will clear up the issue them proceed.
Just to make sure we are staying on topic here is your original argument
1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
I have explained why I do not accept that perceived = existent
2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
Your definition of percieved is to be aware, understand, identify and/or observe. Unless you can demonstrate that any one has ever become aware of understood identified or observed any actual (non imaginary) god(s) I do not accept that this is true though I am happy to accept that they have percieved stories told by other humans about some god(s) and or the concept of some god(s)
3. Therefore God exists.
This conclusion does not follow from your dubious premises. I can percieve fiction but if all you mean is that god(s) exist at least as fiction then as I predicted your argument isn't saying very much.
Please feel free to reformulate your argument in light of these issues
Created:
-->
@Athias
Tested for. Detected. Observed objectively and measured. Otherwise how do we know it exists?You're still not answering the question. You're attempting to have me prove you wrong (i.e. "Otherwise how do we know it exists"?) rather than you proving your statement. Why does existence need to be tested for? That is your claim, not mine.
Things may exist that cannot be confirmed to exist but from pur perspective there is no difference between a thing which cannot be detected and a thing which does not exist. There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption, and argument from ignorance. You can make zero accurate statements about an unobservable and untestable thing.
Our senses would seem to only react to physical material forces."Seem" is not an argument; seem is your impression
Perhaps but without some demonstration that there is more than a physical component any hypothesis which includes one can be dismissed out of hand.
An example of the non-physical would be a number.
Any abstract concept relies on a thinking agent to conceive it. All thinking agents of which I am aware are physical in nature and so if we are going to consider abstract concepts nonphysical (something I remain unconvinced of since brain activity is physically measurable) then it is still an emergent property of the physical unless demonstrate otherwise
perhaps you could define immaterial the way you are using it.Conceptual.
Concepts as I have already explained are sufficiently explained by physical means.
Sure, that would be the "spirit" of a knife. What is your essence?
Apparently electrical signals and chemical reactions in my brain. So nothing immaterial or nonphysical.
I don't concern myself with impressions in serious discussions. You'll never see me use the terms, "seems," "looks/sounds like," "appear," etc. in arguments I author because they are not relevant.
Human beings may not be capable of one hundred percent certainty on nearly any point. I am only certain of one thing for example beyond the shadow of a doubt. I am experiencing something even if that something turns out to be completely illusory. Now if I accept these experiences at face value then I can make certain determinations about this perceived reality especially through the rigorous application of the scientific method but knowledge claims that are too certain are generally a result of flawed reasoning. The only true wisdom lies in the understanding that we know nothing.
Psychics claim to make "predictions" usually based on probing for intimate information.
Ah! A hucksters. A conman or showman. A fraud. No I am not a psychic.
you need help understanding something I've stated, then I take no issue in helping you clarify
And yet
Verify the provided definitions at your leisure if you bear questions of their "accuracy."
Is my answer rather than a clarification of terms. So which is it? Are you willing to help clarify your language or am I to somehow verify what you mean when you use a term without your input?
Created:
-->
@Athias
How else would we know it exists?You're not answering the question. Why does it need testing?
Tested for. Detected. Observed objectively and measured. Otherwise how do we know it exists?
Everything that I know of is a part of our local representation of space time (the observable physical universe) what do you mean by exist if you don't mean part of the observable universe?You're "smuggling." (More so redefining ad hoc.) Substantiate the necessary biconditional between materialism and observation.Note: in my description of perceive, the term "observe" is included.
Our senses would seem to only react to physical material forces. If you cannot demonstrate some non physical thing let alone how we would detect one then you cannot blame such a thing exists.
Unless you mean something else we fan dispense with the word spirit as being a useless term which does not differentiate between a material and non material thing.It is useless to differentiate the material and the immaterial, especially given that former is fundamentally informed by the latter.
Since immaterial is colloquially considered to be a synonym for non being or a lack of existence perhaps you could define immaterial the way you are using it. Also you have not demonstrated this fundamental informing whatever that is. At the moment this proposed spirit/essence/immaterial spinds like nonsense. Is there any way you could clear this up?
So just the actual thing itself? That just sounds like an ordinary physical object or energy wave.Your concern is not what it "sounds like." Sounds like is your impression, not a reflection of my statement.
If I have the wrong impression I got it from you. The things that a knives have without which they cannot be defined or recognized as a knife are a blade and a grip (or at the very least a tang) those are physical objects. If this isn't what you meant then I request a more comprehensive/accurate definition.
I made a prediction.You're a psychic?
No but I have reasonable expectations about this conversation based on past experiences in fact I don't know exactly what psychic even means so unless you are prepared to offer a definition maybe we should drop it.
Clearly not as I am asking for clarification in this very message.but so far you are having trouble even defining terms.Really? Have I not defined every term you've requested?
Created:
-->
@Athias
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"?Why does it need to be tested?
How else would we know it exists?
What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?Make explicit the parameters of that which I've emboldened.
Everything that I know of is a part of our local representation of space time (the observable physical universe) what do you mean by exist if you don't mean part of the observable universe?
Ok please define essence.The property without which one/it would lose its capacity to be identified as oneself/itself; an intrinsic quality that determines its fundamental character.
So just the actual thing itself? That just sounds like an ordinary physical object or energy wave. Unless you mean something else we fan dispense with the word spirit as being a useless term which does not differentiate between a material and non material thing.
Well that is what I'm trying to fund out right now.So you levied a bald assertion?
I made a prediction. If after this discussion it turns out I was wrong I will happily admit it but so far you are having trouble even defining terms.
Created:
If to exist is as I described, i.e. to have actual being whether material or spiritual, then "spiritually" would denote that which is wholly or partly not material.
How do we test for the existence of some "wholly or partly not material thing"? What does it mean to exist if you are not referring to material existence?
What even is spirit?Essence.
Ok please define essence.
If you believe that my argument meets the description of your assessment,
Well that is what I'm trying to fund out right now.
Created:
-->
@Athias
What does it mean to exist spiritually? What even is spirit? Also the whole point is that we are examining your argument to see if I was correct or incorrect in my assessment of it so don't get to hung up on my assessment before we have thusly examined said argument.
Created:
-->
@Athias
It is your argument and they are your words. Please give your preferred definition of believe percieve and exist as used in this context.
Created:
Posted in:
- Jesus was born of a virgin
I can only think of one viable scenario. His mother must have sat in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Reconciliation with GOD is a very good analogy for being nothing more or less than the rest of the universe.You give your life meaning because that it what you are programmed to do, and if that includes believing in a specific GOD, then that is absolutely fine.My life has meaning without the need for belief in a specific GOD.Nonetheless, should there be a specific GOD, I expect that they would be wise and noble enough to understand.
Well stated.
Created: