There'll never be closure on whether God exists

#541

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

12.20.2019 04:34PM

3

4

9

12.20.2019 04:34PM

-->

@blanks

It also attempts to unfairly shifts the burden-of-proof to your opponent.
If you are attempting to say that something exists, you have the burden of proof.

You would imagine.

However, if you insist "it doesn't exist", then you must be able to support your claim with logic.

Or modify your claim.

Perhaps something like, "your gods are indistinguishable from non-existent".

If someone claims to have seen gods or heard the voices of gods, you can't "prove them wrong".
You can assume that they are not being truthful, if they have not presented evidence.

No you can't.

It is a violation of Civil Debate to demonize your opponent.

This includes presuming they are being insincere, willfully ignorant, biased, intellectually blind, stupid, evil, or insane, etcetera.

Basically, NO AD HOMINEM ATTACKS.

#542

blanks

Debates: 1

Posts: 8

0

3

blanks

12.20.2019 05:03PM

0

3

12.20.2019 05:03PM

-->

@3RU7AL

However, if you insist "it doesn't exist", then you must be able to support your claim with logic.

My claim has always been that there is no liable evidence that proves the existence of a god.

It is a violation of Civil Debate to demonize your opponent.

Assuming that I am demonizing someone simply because I question their claims, is in itself an attempt to demonize.

By attempting to make me look like the antagonist of this conversation, you are, by definition, demonizing me.

#543

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

12.20.2019 06:20PM

3

4

9

12.20.2019 06:20PM

-->

@blanks

However, if you insist "it doesn't exist", then you must be able to support your claim with logic.
My claim has always been that there is no liable evidence that proves the existence of a god.

And when a believer tells you they've experienced gods love personally and it was "life changing", doesn't that count as "evidence" (at least to that one person)?

I mean, if you had a meaningful experience, perhaps in a dream or something, would that experience "not exist" or be invalidated because nobody believed you?

No.

Your personal experiences are your most precious treasures.

It is a violation of Civil Debate to demonize your opponent.
Assuming that I am demonizing someone simply because I question their claims, is in itself an attempt to demonize.
By attempting to make me look like the antagonist of this conversation, you are, by definition, demonizing me.

Suggesting that someone is lying (assume they are not being truthful) is an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

This is a fact. I have made no such claim about you. You can question someone's CLAIMS without questioning their sincerity.

Identifying an AD HOMINEM ATTACK is not, itself, an AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

#544

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3

4

9

3RU7AL

12.20.2019 06:41PM

3

4

9

12.20.2019 06:41PM

-->

@Athias

HOWEvEer, your personal experience has proven to you, personally, that some ideas and perceptions are unreliable.
Give an example.

When you dream that you've driven your motorcycle off the edge of a cliff, and you wake up suddenly, at that moment you realize that "some ideas and perceptions are unreliable".

All thoughts EXIST (as GNOSIS), sure, BUT not all thoughts are TRUE.
How does subjective information make a perception "non-true" and intersubjective information make a perception "true"?

EXCELLENT POINT.

Ok, GNOSIS is yours and yours alone, no need to talk about it or anything, no need to "prove" it to anyone, no need to determine exactly how true or how false it is, I mean, you can if you want to, but nobody else gives a hoot.

LANGUAGE IS ITSELF AN INTERSUBJECTIVE EXERCISE.

Language ONLY exists to facilitate communication BETWEEN different people.

LANGUAGE ITSELF DOES NOT APPLY TO PURE GNOSIS.

From this perspective, this epistemological foundation, it should be clear that "true" must be intersubjectively verifiable (and or logically necessary).

#545

Athias

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

3

9

Athias

12.20.2019 07:28PM

3

9

12.20.2019 07:28PM

-->

@3RU7AL

When you dream that you've driven your motorcycle off the edge of a cliff, and you wake up suddenly, at that moment you realize that "some ideas and perceptions are unreliable".

What was unreliable about that dream?

EXCELLENT POINT.

Ok, GNOSIS is yours and yours alone, no need to talk about it or anything, no need to "prove" it to anyone, no need to determine exactly how true or how false it is, I mean, you can if you want to, but nobody else gives a hoot.

How does the part you've emboldened inform or qualify the veracity of Gnosis?

LANGUAGE IS ITSELF AN INTERSUBJECTIVE EXERCISE.

It can be.

Language ONLY exists to facilitate communication BETWEEN different people.

I disagree. While I don't seek to contest that language is used primarily for communication between different people, that demarcates neither its existence nor its utility. Language can be used to identify and/or distinguish thoughts even to oneself. One can, for example, use language to distinguish sensations of happiness and anger.

LANGUAGE ITSELF DOES NOT APPLY TO PURE GNOSIS.

You've yet to substantiate this.

From this perspective, this epistemological foundation, it should be clear that "true" must be intersubjectively verifiable (and or logically necessary).

Even if we were to entertain your premises, they still wouldn't substantiate how "truth" must be inter-subjectively verifiable. After all, what is inter-subjectivity if not a composite of individual pure gnosis?

#546

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

12.26.2019 01:06PM

3

4

7

12.26.2019 01:06PM

-->

@sylweb

What do you mean by Ultimate Reality?

If all you mean by "Ultimate Reality" is some vague sense of order and natural or moral law, then you haven't really dealt with God. God isn't just order and reality. When we talk about God, we generally mean a personal God with intentions, actions, discretion, and maybe even a name.

Exactly what that means. The Absolute Truth. The Supreme Being.

There is nothing vague about it, it means something very specific. If you recognize what it is that is beimg spoken of, you will recognize that God's essence is certainly unknowable. It isn't vagueness that makes God unknown, it is the fact that divinity is of a whole different nature than created things. Created things are contingent existences, they come into being, exist only in relation. The Ultimate Reality on the other hand is pre-eternal in the sense that time itself is contingent on God. God has always been, always is, and will forever be, truly eternal. Truly The Singularity, very distinct in nature from creation.

We understand very well that God's essence is unknowable, because to know The Ultimate Reality is to know all that can be known. To know God you would have to be God.

God is personal in the sense that our very life and experience is our relationship with God. When we recognize that The Truth is God, we recognize God by name. When we live the lifelong struggle and discipline of abiding in The Truth and walking The Way that entails, we are worshipping God in the Orthodox sense, that is, in Spirit and Truth. That is, worshipping God in Trinity.

#547

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,067

3

6

zedvictor4

12.27.2019 07:30AM

3

6

12.27.2019 07:30AM

-->

@Mopac

As ever, a whole lot of words that doesn't really tell us anything.

It just confirms for you, a set of internally held data that you consider to be meaningful.

#548

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

12.27.2019 01:15PM

3

4

7

12.27.2019 01:15PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Everything is meaningless to a nihilist, that is the joke.

Atheism towards my God is nihilism.

I can say that because my words do have meaning, and the last thing you should do when you don't understand something is adopt an attitude of arrogance. There is grace that comes with humility.

#549

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

12.27.2019 01:29PM

3

4

7

12.27.2019 01:29PM

-->

@3RU7AL

It is not possible to truly know The Way without abiding in it.

Information isn't what you need. What you lack is not information, but faith.

#550

ebuc

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,920

3

2

4

ebuc

12.28.2019 06:01PM

3

2

4

12.28.2019 06:01PM

-->

@3RU7AL

@zedvictor4

" G " od = " U "niverse = simple, not complex

God = Universe = Uni-V-erse { finite one } = simple, not complex

Finite = integrity = systemic and structural integrity = sacred/divine

5-fold Icosa{20}hedron contains >

...4-fold Vector Equlibrikum contains >

........3-fold tetrahedron 4-fold contains >

.............720 degrees of surface angle contains >

...............360 degrees of a 2D circle plane contains >

...................4 right angle triangles.....................

120 surface right-triangles of the icosahedron is the maximum set of regular/symmetrical polygons that can occur and cover any polyhedron.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s09/figs/f86471.html

The 120 outer surfaceright spherical triangles of the icosahedron's 6, 10,and 15 great circles generate a total of 242 externalvertexes, 480 external triangles, and 480 internal face-congruenttetrahedra, constituting the maximumlimit of regular spherical system surface omnitriangularself-subdivisioning into centrally collectedtetrahedral components.

1440 internal triangles

Shells of many, if not most, protein based viral shells, are based on the icosahedron

#551

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 12,067

3

6

zedvictor4

12.28.2019 09:16PM

3

6

12.28.2019 09:16PM

-->

@Mopac

And what does one actually base faith upon?

Have you ever sensibly considered such a point?

#552

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

3

4

7

Mopac

12.28.2019 10:41PM

3

4

7

12.28.2019 10:41PM

-->

@zedvictor4

If you don't think I am sensible, then you shouldn't be coming at me with questions. After all, your only intent from that point would be to make yourself out to be something by picking on someone you think is mentally incompetent.

#553

disgusted