Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
An example of a straw man would be if one bloke says to another "when you say there is no god you are really saying there is no truth" even when that is clearly not what has been said. Hopefully this example clears this up for you a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
It's only a straw man if I make yoir argument for you. If you make an argument and I contest that argument that isnt a straw man (don't believe me? Look it up)it's just an argument.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
So it's stupid to say that people don't just get to make things up and call them Reality? You should be able to just use make believe to form a worldview?
I mean I suppose you can but that is no way to get to the truth.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
My entire argument is that you don't get to just make stuff up and call it reality you have to demonstrate it. I just can't believe in things that can't be proven the way that you can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
True things would still be true if no god(s) exist. This includes your god Mopac.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
True things would still be true if no god(s) exist. This includes your god Mopac.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
That is a circular argument. It doesn't add anything to.our discourse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am in doubt that truth is contingent on a being of any kind.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
I cannot have a relationship with a being that I cannot confirm the existence of. The next move, it would seem, is god's (if such a being even exists).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Really you just aren't very exact in your definitions. Is Truth a being or just a set of facts? The former has not been demonstrated and the latter us just a definitional tautology. I have no objection to the second it is only the first that you have failed to demonstrate. Except that I don't really understand what you mean by truth right Mopac? And that is not your fault is it? I mean it's not as if you are the one explaining it or anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Thank you for clarifying.I don't have any compelling arguments for you
I also reject that you are a reasonable person.
So just to get this straight you expect me to believe you when you have no compelling arguments but I am the irrational one?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Your experience does not inform mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
That would be very convenient if in theory you actually do not have any compelling arguments.
I'm not saying you don't have any but I am saying that if you don't share any it is functionally the same as if you have none.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The faith is not rational apprehension,
Perhaps not but knowledge is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Things that aren't going to happen don't happen.Thus sounds like either determinism or fatalism. Both positions are inconsistent with the idea of freewill. If this is not your argument please explain the FUNCTIONAL DETECTABLE DIFFERENCE between these positions and yours.You reach God through purifying the nous, not mental gymnastics.
If using the fact that things that aren't going to happen don't happen in any way justifies a belief in freewill please explain the FUNCTIONAL DETECTABLE DIFFERENCE between mental gymnastics and your prefered method.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Then please procede with an argumeny which is not circular or baldly asserted without evidence that could not be applied equally to justify multiple contradictory positions. Or if this is an unreasonable please explain why rather than simply asserting baldly that it is unreasonable.
The specific argument that I am referencing by the way is yoir claim that the truth is completely dependent on a being which is capable of emotion at a minimum. You have of course claimed that it possessed other attributes during our discussions but lets start here.
I am not disputing that the truth exists I am unconvinced that it is contingent on a being which loves me based on the available evidence.
Except of course I don't know what you truly mean by love do I Mopac? Which is of course my fault for being wicked and a self defeating nihilist and worthy of ridicule isn't that right Mopac? Its a good thing you haven't ever insulted me. Really gives you the moral high ground.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Thus sounds like either determinism or fatalism. Both positions are inconsistent with the idea of freewill. If this is not your argument please explain the FUNCTIONAL DETECTABLE DIFFERENCE between these positions and yours.Things that aren't going to happen don't happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Questioning a premise exhaustively is actually exactly the way humans learn, through trial and error. You come to know something by first questioning its validity and then discovering that the premise is in fact valid.
If there is a way of establishing something's validity without first questioning thay validity then you will have to detail the process and demonstrate how it differs from other belief systems that also claim to be devine revelation of truth or Truth if you like.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Please decide which of your contradictory claims you actually support.No, you get nothing from me.
Then I am not the one holding up the conversation. I am willing to hear your explanation of your seemingly contradictory stance but you are unable or unwilling to provide any explanation beyond bald assertion and circular argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Please answer my question before moving on to a new topic just this once.
What is the FUNCTIONAL difference between being charitable about believing things that CANNOT be DEMONSTRATED and being GULLIBLE.
I have even emphasized the important words so you know exactly what I am asking you to adddress.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
False. I do not know you so I am not emotionally invested enough to maintain such a strong emotion.you hate me.
you hate Christ.
False. I do not believe he necessarily exists and so I am not emotionally invested enough to maintain such a strong emotion.
Yet even Christ said to forgive you, because you know not what you are doing.
Yet you claim that Christ will not forgive me for what I'm doing. Please decide which of your contradictory claims you actually support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
you would show some charity
Charity? You mean with my belief? What is the functional difference between being charitable about believing things that have not been demonstrated and being gullible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I have nothing to offer you.
Not so far no.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
The devil uses scripture as well, and the devil comes to kill, steal, and destroy.
Then why trust scripture at all?
I am here because I love you
You do not love me. You think I am a wicked fool who is worthy of ridicule and deserves to be tortured eternally (or perhaps just separated from god for eternity which honestly doesn't sound so bad since being separated from him now is not hurting me).
I want you to know The Truth.
As you have oft times stated yourself there is a difference between what is true and what is knowable. It is unreasonable for you to expect me to know the unknowable and the knowable is knowable because it can be observed/demonstrated ergo if you want me to believe without any observable evidence or demonstration from you you are being unreasonable.
I am not here to debate
Oh. That actually clears up a lot. This whole time I thought you just did not understand how to debate but if that isn't even what your trying to do your behavior actually makes a lot of sense. On a side note structuring and using valid logical arguments (otherwise known as debate) might be a more efficient way of accomplishing ypur stated goal of convincing people that your position is the correct one.
I am here to declare The Truth.
Really? Because from your behavior you would seem to be here to make bald assertions and circular arguments that actually have the effect of discouraging many of us from taking your views and arguments seriously.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
It is not a very Christian thing to engage in debate about these things to begin with.
I have two responses to this.
The first is Peter 3:15 surely you know it.
The second is to ask you why in the blue blazes are you are here debating if it is unchristian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I'm sure he will be along to object to our sidebar as soon as he sees it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
On a separate note I fully expect him to object to my last post. Possibly based on his first definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As far as I can tell Mopac had two definitions for god. The one he uses if anyone asks him for ebidence or disagrees with him and then the definition that actually describes the god he believes in.
The first definition amounts to god=truth=reality. If this was the truly his only definition then it would be hard to argue with because it gives no definite attributes this could be defining simple natural processes and just calling them god. That is not really what Mopac means however and that is where the second definition comes in.
I'm not sure that he has ever shared this more complete definition with me in its entirety since any time it is questioned he retreats back to his first tautologically true definition. From what I have been able to gather however Mopac believes that god is a being with agency that experiences emotions such as love anger and regret that is all powerful all knowing and omnipresent but which provides freewill.
He defends both definitions based on arguments that only actually apply to the first definition but makes arguments about other topics using the second definition as though it were a given but again if anyone disagrees with his arguments he retreats to his first definition.
And now you know Mopac's deal... at least as much as I do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You say God doesn't exist
Incorrect. I say you have not demonstrated that any god(s) exist. This is a very important distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You mean like defining absolute unassailable certainty in your untestable claims as being humble? Yes I disagree with how you define some things it is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am willing to accept that I am wrong if sufficient evidence can be provided. You are unwilling to even examine the idea that it is possible that you are wrong.
Which of us does that make arrogant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If that is the case your directly contradicting yourself will certainly not clear anything up for me. Perhaps you should examine your teaching methods. They seem to be somewhat flawed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaRedeemed
You have sent me a link intended to establish Jesus as a historical figure. As I said even if this is the case he has now been dead for quite a long time.
Created:
Posted in:
@mopac
Something beyond our comprehension cannot be understood. That is a direct contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am talking about cabbage, and you insist that it is an orange. You are not being reasonable. You are being a fool.
This is a poor analogy since both cabbages and oranges are detectable and what you are proposing is not. A better analogy would be if you were showing me an empty box and insisting it was full of cabbage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
These two statements one after another constitute nonsense. One directly contradicts the other.What He is, by essence and nature, is altogether beyond our comprehension and knowledge."And surely, anyone who understands what "The Ultimate Reality" means
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaRedeemed
I'm sorry but I meant how have you determined that Jesus loves anyone? My understanding is that if there even was a historical Jesus he has been dead a long time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I refuse to accept any and all god claims which do not meet their burden of proof.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You have stated more than once that the truth is unknowable. That is at odds with your above statement. Please decide which of your contradictory claims you actually support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I was not addressing you and even if I were this is not am answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaRedeemed
Jesus loves you.
How have you determined this to be the case?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
And that is because you have not demonstrated that this is true in the way that you mean it or even really communicated exactly what it is that you do mean.That is because you do not accept that The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I do no accept your assessment of atheism. I never have. You are just completing the circle we always go in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
What is considered blasphemy is arbitrary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Unless you can prove that blasphemy is more than a subjective opinion it us a pretty empty term that could be applied to anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is not a civil way to behave towards a fellow interlocutor. I do not recall demeening you in this manner. I would ask that you at least attempt to be civil.you are also deserving of mockery
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No Mopac you have always been the one who focuses on definition over meaning and bogs the conversation down.You are simply quarreling over the meanings of words
I don't care what definition you use you must still meet your burden of proof and you still have not even bothered to acknowledge that you have shouldered such a burden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Actually I just have a hard time accepting all the inconsistencies in your claims and your failure to meet your burden of proof. As you pointed out before if I believed you despite all that then we would not have any issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I understand your position Mopac I just don't accept it.
Created: