-->
@Ramshutu
Christianity is not the only religion that recognizes The Ultimate Reality as God.
You are making a non argument.
Ramshutu’s Razor
Posts
Total:
315
-->
@Ramshutu
Besides, you don't know what we believe, you after all, are on the outside. All you get are parables.
-->
@Ramshutu
You are trying to make this an argument over the veracity of a conception rather than The Ultimate Reality, which is what God means.
-->
@Mopac
Non sequitor - Im talking about you, and your religion specifically.
Do you believe that the God of the Bible exists? That there is a heaven, that he sent Jesus, that he has a mind, that God judges humans, that God has powers to affect humans, answer prayers, etc.
If any of that is true - then I am correct and you’re entire argument is epic equivocation.
if none of that is true - and you believe God is ONLY the reality we see and not anything more, not supernatural, nor personal - then you are not a theist.
Which is it?
-->
@Ramshutu
You don't know what any of that means, so answering the questions would not be beneficial to you. You have superstitious ideas about what those things mean.
I am telling you the truth when I say God is The Ultimate Reality. Our religion isn't about what God is so much as how God is and our relationship with that.
Even we willl say that the essence of God, that is, The Ultimate Reality, is beyond knowing.
But you don't really want to understand what we believe, you are content to think that you know better.
-->
@Mopac
I’ll ask again:
Do you believe that the God of the Bible exists? That there is a heaven, that he sent Jesus, that he has a mind, that God judges humans, that God has powers to affect humans, answer prayers, etc.
If any of that is true - then I am correct and you’re entire argument is epic equivocation.
if none of that is true - and you believe God is ONLY the reality we see and not anything more, not supernatural, nor personal - then you are not a theist.
Which is it?
You keep not answering any questions when it is demonstrated they’ve you’re wrong either way.
In this case. You’re either equivocating or not a Christian - there is no third option, no matter how many ways you want to pretend there is (and refuse to explain what it is)
-->
@Ramshutu
Better yet, why even bother creating humans if you know ahead of time that 99% of them are going to hell in a hand-basket.
Imagine I created a bunch of super-sophisticated robots on an otherwise uninhabited planet.
If these robots don't honor me and worship me and follow my commandments which I only revealed to one of them, in private, then when they reach the end of their operational lifetime, I have the power to remotely switch their brains into a virtual reality mode where they experience eternal torture.
The ones who please me will get a very nice virtual reality where they can worship me in person for eternity, aren't they are so profoundly lucky?
Why would a person do such a thing?
What kind of a person would do such a thing?
If you designed and programmed the things from scratch, why not just make them "good" (or even perfect) in the first place?
What kind of petty moron tortures their creations for following their programming?
-->
@Ramshutu
What I believe is irrelevant to my argument.
In fact, what anyone believes is irrelevant.
If I were to answer a positive to your questions, it would not make your argument any better.
Your argument is simply to make God something other than God. A big fat giant straw man coupled with invincible ignorance.
Then, to make your position even more illogical, you think that you can disprove God by imagining things.
You don't have anything to stand on.
The Ultimate Reality is God. You in your arrogance pretend to know The Ultimate Reality. Your god is your own understanding.
-->
@Mopac
Like I said.
You’re either dishonestly equivocating, or the God you claim exists is not the Christian God of ANY theistic God, or any actual God any human would consider “God” or a “god”.
To be honest, I’m correct both ways around.
-->
@Ramshutu
No, you are simply being haughty. Your either/or is even fallacious.
You ain't standing on shit.
-->
@Ramshutu
Correct in what?
There is no argument against God. The Ultimate Reality is God.
Ramshutu acknowledges that Absolute Truth is real, he believes God exists. He believes in HIS OWN CONCEPTION of God that he doesn't call God.
-->
@Mopac
The either or, is systematic logic, and wholly valid.
I can tell this because of your evasive non answers, and you not bothering to do more than say I am wrong.
Normally, people who know they have a valid argument, make one instead of relying on loudly assertinf the other person is incorrect.
Like I said: God that is defined as reality, and no more - exists, and is meaningless tautology as its basically saying “reality is real.
But that God isnt a theistic God, or the Christian God, or the God you believe in: unless you equivocate definitions.
So this leaves you with two possibilities you can either agree that you use different definitions - equivocation - or you agree that your reality only definitions apply - that you cannot prove a theistic or Christian God exists.
Its one or the other: refusing to acknowledge one or the other, your refusal to answer any question or explain why exactly I am so gosh darn wrong doesn’t change that it is now a binary choice. You’re either wrong, or wrong.
-->
@Ramshutu
I have nothing new to add to the conversation. I have explained how you have embraced folly.
-->
@Mopac
Again - simply shouting at me at how wrong I am doesn’t fix the objective fault in your logic.
I’ve explained multiple times the errors you’re making, and as you’re now capitulating into assertions, I can only surmise that your recognize your own errors and are simply trying to save face.
-->
@Ramshutu
I think you are projecting.
-->
@Mopac
No, I have explained in great detail.
Reality exists, if your definition of God is ONLY reality, then God exists, but it is not the Christian God (more than reality) or any theistic Hod (more than reality).
This means either you cannot prove the Christian God you worship exists, OR you’re deliberately equivocating.
So far you’ve not provided any explanation as to why that’s wrong.
-->
@Ramshutu
You can't say that God isn't the Christian God because you only have a superficial understanding of what we believe. You are not speaking with knowledge.
-->
@Mopac
The God you are defining is not the Christian God.
The Christian God is more than simply reality. Mind, thought, judging, etc.
If you feel you’re proving the Christian God by saying reality exists - you are equivocating.
-->
@Ramshutu
I find it amusing that you think you know that God is mindless, thoughtless, and doesn't judge.
-->
@Mopac
Youre defining God as mindless if you’re defining God as reality.
-->
@Mopac
Its what I’ve been saying for like 10 pages now, do you not get that? Or you’re just deliberately misunderstanding because you can’t argue against it?
-->
@Ramshutu
I have been telling you for 10 pages that none of that is essential to what The Ultimste Reality means.
The Ultimate Reality is God whether or not it fits your conception of God.
-->
@Mopac
So you’re definition of God doesnt include a mind, thoughts, doesn’t judge people, doesn’t have powers, and your definition of God isn’t the Christian God...
Youre equivocating.
When I suggest you’re defining God as mindless and reality only - you object, and say that’s not the definition.
Then I point out that you can’t prove reality has a mind, judges people, etc - so you don’t know whether your God exists - you object saying God is just reality.
You’re literally choosing two definitions depending on what arguments being made.
thia is textbook equivocation.
-->
@Ramshutu
The definition doesn't exclude these things either.
And The Ultimate Reality is certainly what we recognize as God, whether you believe that or not is irrelevant. As I said, you have a superficial understanding of my faith, and appear to have already made up your mind about it.
I'm not equivocating, you are simply being haughty.
-->
@Mopac
So your definition both does and doesn’t include key terms that makes God God? Depending on how your side of the argument is going.
Equivocation.
You do know how Definitions work?
-->
@Ramshutu
The Ultimate Reality is God.
Thats it.
And guess what?
God's goal for the universe is for it to exist.
Imagine that!
I'm not sorry if that makes you wrong.
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m not entirely sure how much simpler, or slower I can explain this. It seems no matter how simply I explain this, multiple people are making this same insane argument.But let me try again!
Yes, you should try again because you are not making your charge understood by me. Are you including me in the "multiple people"? I'll be glad to look at your charge if that is the case and also explain to you the fallacy you are committing (one of many).
So let’s assume that in the reality in which we exist: God exists. Morality is objective. Values are Objective. Yay.
Morality is only objective if it meets the standards of objectivity. I think you should define what you mean by objective morality.
Will you grant you are a subjective being? Will you admit that you are a relative, limited in understanding human being who does not see the whole picture? Will you admit that for us to know "better" there must be a fixed, ultimate reference point (or else any reference point will do providing the person has the power to enact it and all you have to do is look at the world to see this power struggle in operation where those in power dictate what is right and what is wrong and in the process their preferences are in conflict with those of others)?
I await your answers!
As an Athiest, I should be able to take this Morality (which I share or can derive from religious explanations), and take these objective values - and apply them to the universe.
Here is where you demonstrate the fallacy of equivocation. What you do is apply the same standard to two different measures that are not related.
First, I want to know how you apply morality and objective moral values to the universe? Your statement implies you can.
The universe is an entity that is not personal (or do you want to argue that it is?). The universe is a physical entity without intent. Explain to me how it can be moral yet you are equating and applying morality to it?
Second, you are confusing how you get an ought from an is. How can something that is amoral make moral decisions? Person, intentional beings, make moral judgments and are about morality. The universe could not care less (for it doesn't care or are you implying it does?).
Third, you have continually used the word "better" and "objective" in reference to morality and the universe. You need to explain what your standard of comparison is in arriving at "better." Then you need to show it meets the standard for being objective. So far, you have not established any of this.
Lo and behold - in a universe where morality and these religious values are objective - the universe would be the best possible universe that could be imagined.
Imagined by who? What makes your imaginations the standard that I judge other imaginations from? Are you NECESSARY for my belief in morality to be objective? Again, you use the word "Best."
First, establish your moral view is objective or even has what is necessary for objectivity.
Second, why is your limited subjective biased imagination the standard?
-->
@Mopac
What was your ultimate reality called before the middle ages and how does that effect your claim that truth is eternal?
What was your ultimate reality called before 4000BC and how does that effect your claim that truth is eternal?
-->
@Mopac
Is your god all knowing?