Yet according to the dictionary which I am unjustly mocked for going to as a reference for the meaning of words, powerful rulers are considered gods.
Ask an idiot
Posts
Total:
266
-->
@Mopac
If you all know how it will play out, I won't waste our time then.I tried to warn you all. What else can I do?You have made your choice.
Aww, don't be like that Mopac. If we think we know what you are going to say and still disagree with you then we must be wrong about what you are going to say, right? Let's continue!
Where did we leave off... We both accepted that I believe absolute truths exist and you asked me if there was something that binds them all together then I asked you to clarify because it sounds like you are talking about either my mind or the universe, both of which I believe in. This might not be what you meant though which is why I asked you to clarify.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The universe is defined by merriam-webster...
"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"
The mind is as merriam-webster defines...
"the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons"
So mind and universe are intrinsically linked, because it is a mind that observes and postulates.
-->
@Mopac
Sounds good to me. Any other questions?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If there is a universe, is it not The Ultimate Reality that gives it existence?
-->
@Mopac
To say that something was 'given' existence implies intent, so you are asking me whether the universe was intentionally created by some independent agent from outside of the universe. That is what you are asking.
Is that what you mean to ask me or was that just bad wording on your part? If that is what you meant I will happily answer your question, if that is not what you meant I will allow you to rephrase the question in a way that makes your meaning more clear.
-->
@Tradesecret
Agnostic seems to be the most reasonable scientific position to take. It's actually a valid answer to say you do not know so you can look at the evidence you can look at.
-->
@Mopac
Yet according to the dictionary which I am unjustly mocked for going to as a reference for the meaning of words, powerful rulers are considered gods.
You're not mocked for using the dictionary for the only purpose it has(to define words). You're mocked for using said definitions as arguments for what entities exist. The dictionary defines many words. Such as: Unicorn, leprechaun, fairy. Just because these words are defined as if they exist doesn't mean they do. The only reason the Oxford dictionary defines "God" as "the ultimate reality" is because that is what several religions believe "God" is. Whether or not "God" actually IS "the ultimate reality" has never been proven nor disproven.
When you learn the difference between word definitions and physical objects, perhaps you won't be seen as a lunatic anymore.
-->
@Greyparrot
What about after you've looked at the evidence?It's actually a valid answer to say you do not know so you can look at the evidence you can look at.
@BT
I know it must be really hard for you to grasp, but I literally worship The Truth as God.
So your attempt to make my God anything other than this is a futile endeavor.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I will put it another way then if it will satisfy your aversion.
If the universe exists, is it not The Ultimate Reality that generates and sustains its existence?
-->
@Mopac
If the universe exists, is it not The Ultimate Reality that generates and sustains its existence?
The word 'generates' is again a verb. You are again asking me whether the universe was created by an independent agent of some sort. That's how words work.
I say again if this is the meaning of your question I am happy to answer as soon as you confirm that is your meaning and not a miscommunication. If this is not your meaning feel free to rephrase.
Would it help if I suggested that you ask me how or why the universe began to exist? That is a really easy question with a simple answer.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Note said 'generates' not 'generated'.
God as the sustainer of reality is fairly mainstream - it even has a wikipedia entry.
Think of the universe as just an idea in the mind of God.
-->
@keithprosser
Sounds like the Elder Scrolls 'godhead' and a few other fictional worlds as well. I am familiar with the concept and that is indeed the first thing that I thought of when reading Mopacs last post but this still requires an independent agent does it not?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
For me - and maybe for you too - the 'ultimate truth/reality', the 'generator and sustainer' is what is sometimes called 'the theory of everything'.
Obviously we don't know what the ToE is, but we can be sure it's not a god. Mopac thinks otherwise - he's sure the 'ultimate reality/sustainer/generator etc' is a god - moreover it's the Orthodox Christian God.
-->
@keithprosser
For me - and maybe for you too - the 'ultimate truth/reality', the 'generator and sustainer' is what is sometimes called 'the theory of everything'.Obviously we don't know what the ToE is, but we can be sure it's not a god. Mopac thinks otherwise - he's sure the 'ultimate reality/sustainer/generator etc' is a god - moreover it's the Orthodox Christian God.
Theory of Everything. I am familiar with the concept although it has been several years since I have seriously looked into the scientific communities 'progress' on the topic (for lack of a better word).
I certainly understand why you would say that is what Mopac would call god. We shall see.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes - the phrase 'ToE' has fallen out of fashion - i'm not quite sure why.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Do you agree that the existence of the universe is contingent on The Ultimate Reality?
-->
@Mopac
It would help if you describe this 'ultimate reality' of yours in a bit more detail. Nobody here unironically uses that phrase except you.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It is the one uncreated and supreme existence that precedes all other existences, which are contained within and contingent on this one existence. It is eternal, necessary, and unlike anything else. It is very much incomparable, there is no equal or opposite to it. It is singular. Complete. It requires nothing to exist, nothing to sustain it. It is perfect and totally complete. It is eternal, timeless. It does not change, it was not created, it had no beginning. It has no end. It is always here, the way it is. It is never not what it is.
It is that which is truly real. Reality in the truest sense of the word. The most real. The only real, even. The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
-->
@Mopac
It is the one uncreated and supreme existence that precedes all other existences, which are contained within and contingent on this one existence.
Okay, seems easy to answer then. I see no reason to believe that there are 'multiple existences' beyond the reality which we exist within.
Any other questions?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That is God.
You aren't an atheist.
-->
@Mopac
It is the one uncreated and supreme existence that precedes all other existences, which are contained within and contingent on this one existence. It is eternal, necessary, and unlike anything else. It is very much incomparable, there is no equal or opposite to it. It is singular. Complete. It requires nothing to exist, nothing to sustain it. It is perfect and totally complete. It is eternal, timeless. It does not change, it was not created, it had no beginning. It has no end. It is always here, the way it is. It is never not what it is.
It can be all those things yet not resemble the God of Christianity. Indeed, I do believe in something like your 'ultimate reality' - but I don't see it as god-like.
-->
@Mopac
That is God.
What is God? I just finished saying to you that I don't believe in this 'ultimate reality' as you defined it.
You aren't an atheist.
I believe there is only one reality whereas you just said there are multiple realities all contingent upon a greater one. That means I disagreed with you. Pretending that I agreed with you is silly.
-->
@keithprosser
You don't know the God we believe in, you just think you do. That is why you don't understand me. You think you know better.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Pardon me, you said that we all exist in one reality and there are no others, which seemed to me to be an admission that there is One True God.
Yet you also say that there is one objective reality, and not many subjective realities. So are you denying your experience or are you saying that you experience reality as it truly is?
-->
@Mopac
I believe there is only one reality whereas you just said there are multiple realities all contingent upon a greater one. These are two different statements. That means I disagreed with you. Pretending that I agreed with you is silly.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You say that there is one objective reality, and not many subjective realities. So are you denying your experience or are you saying that you experience reality as it truly is?
-->
@Mopac
It seems a bit silly to say that a person's perception is reality. If a person sees a hallucination of a talking frog that talking frog is not real. A person may think it is real but that person is incorrect. That is how words work.
But perhaps you should think for a moment before slapping the label of God on the first metaphysical thing we superficially seem to agree on simply because you wish to have a competition rather than a conversation. What else do you believe about God? Does your God have thoughts or emotions?
-->
@Mopac
You don't know the God we believe in, you just think you do. That is why you don't understand me. You think you know better.
Does your god so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life?
The ultimate reality I believe in does none of that stuff. It can't love, have a son or give eternal life. It doesn't hear or answer prayer. But it does underpin the material universe.