Ramshutu’s Razor

Author: Ramshutu

Posts

Total: 315
Topic's author
#181
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
If realty isn’t God, and is something else - then my mind can exist without God, your God doesn’t exist, and all of the nonsensical clap trap you say is untrue.

As you yourself said: your conception of Reality is not Reality. So just because you claim God is reality - this is your own conception - doesn’t make it true.

Now, as I said, you may define God as “reality” but your God has a mind, and powers, and created heaven, and judges people....

Last time I checked, I can’t tell that reality does or has any of those things directly - so it doesn’t matter 


So what you’re doing is wishing your God unto existence.


Reality exists, but as the properties we know reality does not match that of God God - you can’t xlaim your God exists.




Topic's author
#182
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Please explain: 

So I frequently engage, discuss, and attempt to converse with those that disagree with me.

You berate, insult and tell people who disagree with you to “go f**k yourself”, call them dumb, bigots, etc; normally without any argument or conversation.

Please explains why you feel the first is “intolerant towards those with differing opinions” whilst the latter is not?

#183
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
If realty isn’t God, and is something else


Then you are not talking about God, but a god.


And this is your only argument against God, to smash idols and then declare victory over The Ultimate Reality.


I understand that accepting what I am saying would constitute a huge paradigm shift for you, but I am telling you the truth.


That is why we say, "Forgive them, they know not what they do."
#184
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You should stop pretending you know God, your inability to reconcile what you think you know with what we actually believe is confusing you.
Topic's author
#185
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
Let me stop you right there. I am talking about your God.

Here are the things YOUR God has/is - according to your vehement definitions:

Your God is reality
Your God has a mind.
Your God has super powers.
Your God Judge’s us.

Here are the things we know about the properties of Realty.

It exists.

So, is “Reality” your God? We don’t know : because we can’t tell whether reality has a kind, super powers, or judges us.


This shows how your God is not God at all, just your own weak conception of God that you can’t show exists. I have no idea what this nonsense your currently spouting is, it appears that you’re just protesting that you really believe your God exists, and so if I claim your God doesn’t exist, then we can’t be talking about the same thing.

No, I’m talking about your God, capital G.

He exists only in your mind, and you cannot show he really exists - as you cannot show reality has any of the correct properties. Your championing a conception - not God, which is fallable, logically self refuting, as irrational.

You don’t seem to get this because your irrational brain appears to have tied itself in a knot.





#186
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
And the minds of all the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Unless you just mean Christ then it's just the Christians. 
Topic's author
#187
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
As should be fairly or even abundantly clear - I’m talking about his specific individual God, and his specific beliefs; in a philosophical sense.
#188
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You are trying really hard to disprove Ultimate Reality, but it will never work.


You should give up this fools game, and stop trying to confuse the matter with your sophistry.

#189
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Here are the things YOUR God has/is - according to your vehement definitions:

Your God is reality
Your God has a mind.
Your God has super powers.
Your God Judge’s us.

The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

Only definition I have given.

But really, minds exist don't they? How can you say God doesn't have a mind?

How can you look at creation and not think it is a super power to make all this exist?

How can you say God doesn't judge when there are consequences for actions?


Yet all of these issues here are non issues. Once again you sre trying to make The Ultimate Reality into a conception you have of my conception of God instead of what it is.

All your confusion would evaporate if you simply accept that The Truth is what it is and qbandon your baggage.

The Truth is God.





#190
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Here are the things we know about the properties of Realty.

It exists

And so God exists.

Leave it at that.

#191
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
First and foremost your god doesn't exist but equally, prior to the middle ages the word god didn't exist, so your claim that god means the ultimate reality is quite patently not true given your claim that the truth is eternal. Before the middle ages god didn't mean anything.
#192
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@disgusted
I will actually use a line from the Tao te Ching..

"The name that can be named is not the eternal name"


We call this The Holy Name. 


Notice that Jesus is pronounced differently in every language. Notice that the church isn't bothered by this. It is no accident.

A major overarching theme of the New Testament is that "The letter kills, but the spirit brings life."

#193
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Other than God all you have is subjective preference and the question becomes why is Hitler's preference any worse than Mother Teresa's. 
What makes some god(s) preference better than that of Hitler or mother Teresa (by all accounts both Terrible people but neither of whom commanded quite as many genocides as the god depicted in the bible.)

Show me why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared? 
Show me why some god(s) moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared? 

While you are about it perhaps you can also explainhow you have determined any god(s) moral preferences in the first place.

One other thing. I don't think we actually need a universal standard just one we agree upon. 
#194
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
So now answer the question. Before the middle ages what was the name that meant the ultimate reality? Given your claim that the truth is eternal and that you claim that your god being the ultimate reality is the truth, it's obvious that you lie.
Topic's author
#195
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.

Only definition I have given.
You keep defining God as the ultimate reality. Then go on to say he has a mind. You imply he has super powers, and judge humans.

I mean literally you said it in the next sentence.

So your definition implicitly includes God having a mind, judging us, having super powers, etc: just because you don’t say it out loud, doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply.


Now: even worse, you make an irrational and nonsensical argument that God must have a mind because I do. Why? Why is Gods mind. Dependent on me having a mind or not?

Did God not have a mind before he created humans? This is just nonsensical clap trap that doesn’t appear to have any logical meaning, or applicability.
Topic's author
#196
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
I’m not trying to disprove God - I am showing the logical argument you use to defend your God is logically irrational - which it is. 

Your argument appears to really on projection - as sophistry, issues with confusing conceptions with reality, and all other accusation you’ve made - are issues with your own position.
#197
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
if free will can only exist in an imperfect world, then an imperfect world makes sense. or in other words, what sounds imperfect is in some sense perfect for the purposes of God. 
Is heaven not a perfect world?
you guys are assuming a perfect world is best. 
No I did not. You presented a hypothetical in which freewill is impossible in a perfect world. I asked for a clarification of this thought experiment.
#198
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You don't even understand my argument. You are trying so hard to refute what I am saying that you are incapable of understanding what I am saying. In fact, you are trying so hard that you are taking your own delusions as arguments I have made.


So can we agree that God exists?




Topic's author
#199
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
I understand your argument, it’s just illogical and bad.

You define your God as reality. Ok

You say reality exists: Ok.


You then imply that God is much more than reality. Meaning that while reality exists - reality with all the properties of God does not.


This is called equivocation.


Your argument is making the same flagrant logical error as this:

I will define “chuck Norris” to mean reality.

Reality exists.

Therefore Reality an roundhouse kick you in the face.


There are two inherent definitions I am using in this argument, the same way you use two definitions of God: one is “only”
reality, the second is “reality, plus mind, plus powers, plus will, plus judgement”.

You swap those definitions halfway through your reasoning the same way I switch the definition of chuck Norris in the above.

Its terrible logic, and I am not sure whether it is pathological reasoning, dishonesty or ignorance through which you don’t recognize your own error.



 
#200
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I will quote a line from the Simpsons.
Kowabunga.
Don't you just love quoting fictional characters?
#201
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
middle ages
Which one? There are millions claimed to exist, to which do you refer?


#202
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You keep ignoring me correcting you.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that none of the things you are falsely attaching to my "argument" are what I am saying.

But while I leave the question open to these things you falsely accuse me of asserting, you seem to "know better"


I am simply saying that God is The Ultimate Reality, and we both know God exists, so can we settle on that?




Topic's author
#203
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
You're not correcting me, you’re asserting that I am wrong.

While you may not like me pointing out the issues with your argument, this does not mean they are not there, and does not mean any of your arbitrary insistence that you’re not making these errors are valid.


You are, most definitely, repeatedly using two different definitions of God

The first definition is “ultimate reality” - ONLY. No mind, no thoughts, no will, no powers, no interest in human affairs, no judgement, no control of heaven or hell. Nothing - just reality.


The second definition is “ultimate reality, and mind, and thoughts, and powers, and interest in human affairs, and judgement, and control of heaven and hell.” All the properties of a real God.


Reality exist - this means the first definition exists.

You use this to prove God by the SECOND DIFFERENT definition exists.


This is clear and unambiguous equivocation; nonsense definition changing, and logically bankrupt 
#204
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
Ramshutu is the only one I have seen ascribing such properties in this dialog.
Topic's author
#205
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Snoopy
I am more than happy for Mopac to state that his God has no mind, no thoughts, no powers, no interest in human affairs, has no judgement, nor control of heaven and hell, or any features or properties that go along side any rational God.

This concession would render God almost less than Spinoza or Einsteins pantheistic God.

As Mopac explicitly claims God has a mind a few pages back - that is clearly not the case, given that he also appears to be a Christian - this definition is also antithetical to being a Christian and even a theist at all.

Given that, yes - Mopac implicitly uses this definition

#206
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
No, they addressed AFTER your assertions what may have been a source of YOUR conceptions. You say God has a mind, no mind etc... They do not. You do again. They do not. You do again.
#207
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
Topic's author
#208
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Snoopy
You probably want to google the definition of “implicit”

Whether or not Mopac says that his God has any properties of theistic God (mind, powers, gender, sent Jesus, heaven, hell), is largely irrelevant - as he is a Christian, and is clearly arguing that some form of that Christian God exists - this is evident throughout.

As I said - Mopac is free to correct me by specifically stating that he doesn’t think God has a mind, thoughts, was responsible for the Bible, sent Jesus, has heaven, has powers, Etc), and I will happily concede that His God, which is nothing more than reality - and not the Christian God by any definition; but he’s not going to do that.

As this should be implicit, what you’re doing is basically pissing on my head and telling me its raining - we both know these are implicit definitions of Mopacs God - that he doesn’t come out and say it doesn’t make his position any less invalid. Indeed, it’s the whole premise of that equivocation - which depends on the implicit and hidden change in definitions to work.





#209
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
You're not engaging with me honestly, you are simply trying to change what I am saying to what you wish I was saying.

You are not being reasonable.
Topic's author
#210
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Mopac
I am being completely reasonable.

You appear to be Christian and Theist - which means it’s fair to presume that you believe God has a mind, he has thoughts, he judges humanity, etc.


Feel free to deny that, and concede that God is merely and only  the reality we see around and nothing more - that Jesus and the Bible are not related to the divine, etc.



If you’re not willing or prepared to do that, then my argument stands and is clearly valid - you are deliberately trying to hide your faulty definitions.